High CourtsSingle Bench

Baby Sarojani alias Obi vs Achuthan

High Court Of Kerala · Decided on 2 June 1965 · Citation: (1965) KLJ 997

HON’BLE JUDGES
P.T. Raman Nayar, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 — Section 20, 4
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
S.A. 1207 of 1962
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

2 paragraphs · 359 words

P.T. Raman Nayar, J.—u/s 20 of the Hindu Adoptions & Maintenance Act LXXVIII of 1956 both parents (if they are Hindus) are bound to maintain their minor children and by reason of Section 4 of that Act this provision must override Section 13 of the Cochin Thiyya Act, VII of 1107 under which the obligation is cast only on the father. I agree with the lower appellate court in so far as it has held that this does not mean that a child can claim double maintenance; in other words, I think that if the child is being adequately maintained by one parent it cannot claim maintenance from the other as well, although I think that, if the maintenance provided by one parent is inadequate, the use of the word "or" in sub-section (2) of Section 20 of Act LXXVIII of 1956 which says that "a legitimate or illegitimate child may claim maintenance from his or her father or mother so long as the child is minor" would not preclude the child from claiming the deficiency from the other parent. But, in this case, although it would appear that the minor plaintiff is in the custody of the mother who brought the suit on her behalf as her next friend, there is nothing in the pleadings to show that the plaintiff was being adequately maintained or maintained at all by the mother. No such defence was taken; nor was issue joined on the question whether the plaintiff could make no claim against the defendant father because she was being maintained by the co-obligant mother. All that the written statement said was that the plaintiff and her, mother had sufficient property to provide for the plaintiff''s maintenance that is an entirely different matter. That being so, I think the lower appellate court was wrong in disallowing the plaintiff appellant''s claim for the period after Act LXXVIII of 1956 came into force on the sole ground that the plaintiff was being maintained by her mother.

2.

In the result I allow this appeal with costs, set aside the decree of the lower appellate court, and restore that of the trial court.