In a pivotal decision, the Kerala High Court has ruled that an adult son is not entitled to maintenance from his father under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (PWDV Act) or other related maintenance laws. The ruling, delivered by Justice P.G. Ajithkumar on July 23, 2024, in the case of B. Prakash vs. Lazitha S. and Others (CRL REV.PET NO. 255 OF 2020), addresses key questions about the maintenance rights of adult children.
Background:
The case began when Lazitha S. filed a petition under Section 12 of the PWDV Act, seeking various forms of relief, including maintenance for herself and her two children, Akash P. Bharath and Adarsh P. Bharath. The Judicial Magistrate of First Class in Kayamkulam granted the petition, ordering B. Prakash to provide monthly maintenance to his children and forbidding him from any form of abuse.
Prakash contested this decision in the Additional Sessions Court, Mavelikkara, which upheld the maintenance order. Unsatisfied, Prakash then took the matter to the Kerala High Court, arguing that his responsibility to provide maintenance should end once his children reached adulthood.
Legal Issues:
The key question was whether an adult son could claim maintenance under the PWDV Act, Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), and the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 (HAMA).
1. Definition of 'Child' under the PWDV Act: Section 2(b) of the PWDV Act defines a 'child' as anyone under eighteen years old, which influenced the court's decision on eligibility for maintenance.
2. Maintenance Provisions: Section 20(1)(d) of the PWDV Act allows maintenance claims for children. However, Section 125 of the CrPC states that only minor children are eligible for maintenance, with exceptions only for daughters unable to support themselves due to disabilities.
3. Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act (HAMA): Section 20 of HAMA requires a Hindu parent to maintain their minor children and unmarried daughters who cannot support themselves. The Act does not extend this obligation to adult sons.
Court's Ruling:
Justice Ajithkumar ruled that the appellate court had misinterpreted the maintenance laws. The court noted that the PWDV Act's definition of 'child' is limited to those under eighteen, so an adult son is not eligible for maintenance under this Act.
The court pointed out, "Since Section 20(1)(d) of the Act applies only to children, and this is defined by Section 2(b) of the PWDV Act, the appellate court's ruling was incorrect and must be overturned."
Additionally, the court referenced the Supreme Court's ruling in Aditi Alias Mithi v. Jitesh Sharma (2023 SCC Online 1451), which affirmed that a father's obligation to support a child extends only until the child reaches adulthood.
AdvoTalks: Talk to Lawyer https://www.advotalks.com/
for More Legal Updates visit our youtube channel
