High court verdict on daughter's maintenance || Daughter maintenance || crpc 125

The Karnataka High Court has said that the father is not obliged to give the monthly amount of money to his daughter who is earning money from her job.

Justices SN Satyanarayan and PGM Patil partially accepted Sadashivanand's plea in this regard. The bench said, "Initially, the court did fine by ordering some amount of payment but not later than when it got 20-25 thousand per month job in a reputed company. He got 10 thousand The extra amount of money cannot be spoiled by his habit. The father also has the burden of passing on other unmarried daughters and according to the report these people have stopped their studies and two sons are still living. Ligh are not and do to him when they feed until they become on its feet ".

The bench reduced the amount spent on the wedding from 15 lakhs to 5 lakhs. The court said, "Wedding expenses are due when the daughters' wedding day is fixed and this expenditure should not exceed 5 lakhs".

The father appealed in the High Court against the family court's 9 November 2016 decision. Her second daughter Padmini filed a case in court under the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act and also sought relief under Order VII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

The daughter had told the court that she should continue to give her father the amount of money till his marriage, if the date of marriage is fixed, then the expenses of the marriage should be arranged and his education should be completed properly.

The father said that the court disposed of his case in haste and did not look at the evidence presented. Her daughter has also done M Tech after BE and is earning a decent amount of money in a company. But the court ignored these facts and decided to give 10 thousand every month to the daughter and the amount of 15 lakh for marriage.

After going through the available evidence, the bench said, "… there is a case in many of the cases going on between the appellant and his wife in which the wife filed a case in court for the amount of her money and the amount of her daughters. Tax; the second relates to the restoration of marital relations and the third to the matter of property in which he has demanded a 6/7 stake ".

"In this case, the plaintiff is an engineering graduate and is in a job. If it is assumed that he is getting only 20 to 25 thousand, then after that amount, it is not rational for the court to order him to pay the amount. The order of giving 15 lakhs for the marriage is also not rational, whereas no demand was made. No details have been presented that the plaintiff's wedding will cost Rs 15 lakhs. The court. Hud it is guessing that will cost Rs 15 lakh in his marriage and it is not rational in any way. "

JUDGMENT HERE