Punjab and Haryana High Court upholds maintenance beyond majority for son’s graduation

Saurabh Malik  

Chandigarh, July 22

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has upheld a judgment requiring a father to provide maintenance for his son until he completes his graduation or professional course, beyond the statutory requirement of support until the age of majority. 

The Division Bench of Justice Sureshwar Thakur and Justice Sudeepti Sharma asserted wealthy parents should not limit their support to statutory minimums, when they could afford to ensure that their children received the best education and lifestyle.

In his plea, the appellant-father had sought strict application of the statutory provision under Section 20 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act (HAMA) for limiting maintenance to the age of majority.

After hearing rival contentions and examining the documents, the Bench rejected the argument stating that the statutory provision should not be used to deny children the benefits of a better education and lifestyle, when the parent was financially capable.

In its detailed order, the Bench asserted the father was required to ensure that he, with utmost love and affection, groomed his son in a manner which might emulate his style and manner of living. 

The Bench observed: “The said would be done in case he bears all the expenses towards his upkeep besides ensures that his only son is also provided with all incidental benefits compatible to a most comfortable lifestyle which the present appellant also appears to lead, given the quantum of the monetizable assets available at his command”.

The Bench also emphasized the importance of the emotional bond and moral obligations between parent and child, while making it clear that it should take precedence over strict statutory limits.

The Bench asserted wealthy and resourceful father was expected to maximize his love and affection for his son, thereby strengthening their biological bond. Instead of ensuring this bond remains intact, the appellant had clung to the statutory provisions, causing significant emotional damage to both himself and his son.

“For ensuring the intactness of the moral and biological bondage inter-se both besides for ensuring that the appellant irrespective of the rigor of the statutory mandate discharges his moral obligations, as a loving father towards his only son, thereby this Court is clinchingly inclined to uphold the impugned verdict…,” the Bench observed.