Writ petition dismissed challenging Family Court order in an execution case. High Court affirmed father’s mandatory obligation to maintain unmarried daughter despite her employment, quashing the plea of harassment.
Writ petition dismissed; Family Court order dated 18.1.2018 affirmed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
W.P.(C) No.4411 of 2018
3 05.12.2018 Heard Mr.Swain, learned Advocate for the petitioner.
This petition challenges the order dated 11.1.2018 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Keonjhar in Execution Case No.12 of 2016.
c
The dispute is between the father and daughter. The opposite party-daughter along with her brother filed an application under Section 20 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act against the petitioner. In the said case, learned Judge, Family Court allowed the interim maintenance in favour of the opposite party on 21.4.2016 directing the petitioner to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs.4000/- per month with cost of Rs.1000/- from the date of application i.e., on 30.7.2015. Since the petitioner did not pay the maintenance, the opposite party filed Execution Case No.12 of 2016 claiming arrear maintenance from 30.7.2015 to 30.6.2016 amounting to Rs.45,000/- including the cost of Rs.1000/-. In the execution proceeding, a show case was filed by the petitioner under Section 23(2) read with Sec.25 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act. In course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the said petition be treated as a petition under Section 47 of C.P.C. It was stated before the learned trial court that the opposite party has got a job in Rajdhani Engineering College on 26.1.2014 and is able to maintain herself. Therefore, she is not entitled to get maintenance. After hearing at length, learned Judge, Family Court directed the petitioner to pay maintenance amounting to Rs.45,000/- on or before 18.1.2018.
Mr.Swain, learned Advocate for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has constructed a house. The house is in occupation of the opposite party and other members. The opposite party is getting rent from the same. The petitioner has married for the second time. But at the behest of the grandparents, the instant petition has been filed to harass the petitioner. He further submits that the opposite party is an employee. She is not entitled to any maintenance. Her marriage has been fixed. The documents filed in the court have not been taken into consideration.
Admittedly, relationship of the petitioner and the opposite party is father and daughter. The father has moral and legal obligation to maintain her unmarried daughter.
In view of the above, this petition is dismissed.
……………………… Dr.A.K.Rath, J.
c
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the father’s legal obligation to maintain his unmarried daughter can be defeated by her employment and self-sufficiency.
Whether the dismissal of the execution petition in favor of the petitioner is sustainable in light of the father’s statutory duty.
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Petitioner
Opposite party-daughter
Dr.A.K.Rath
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
