Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 99 (GUJ)

Varshaben v. Vipulkumar J Parikh

2019-02-05

PARESH UPADHYAY

body2019
JUDGMENT : PARESH UPADHYAY, J. 1.1 Challenge in Special Civil Application No. 18132 of 2017 is made by the wife to the order passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court at Ahmedabad dated 20.07.2017 below Application Exh.116 in Family Suit No.958 of 2006. The said application Exh.116 was filed by the husband, inter alia agitating that, his son viz., Parshwa, whose date of birth is 27.06.1993, and who is not a minor now, can not claim maintenance per month from the father. It was agitated by the father that, for medical reasons, if the son wants maintenance, he need to get himself examined before the Medical Board. By the impugned order, the Family Court has directed that the son be examined by the Medical Board/Civil Surgeon, Civil Hospital, Ahmedabad. The mother has challenged the said order before this Court. 1.2 Challenge in Special Civil Application No.18133 of 2017 is made by the wife to the order passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court at Ahmedabad dated 20.07.2017 below Application Exh.107 in Family Suit No.958 of 2006. The said application was filed by the wife, inter alia praying for enhancement of interim maintenance, which was earlier granted by the Family Court, Ahmedabad. By the impugned order, the Family Court has allowed the said Application and has enhanced the interim maintenance payable by the husband to the wife from Rs.13,000/- to Rs.18,000/- per month. The Family Court, Ahmedabad has however not granted any enhancement towards the amount payable to the son (date of birth 27.06.1993). It is this second part of the order, which is challenged in this petition by the mother. 1.3 Challenge in Special Civil Application No. 18134 of 2017 is made by the wife to the order passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court at Ahmedabad dated 20.07.2017 below Application Exh.86 in Family Suit No.958 of 2006. The said application was moved by the wife for getting reimbursement of the medical expenses incurred by her for the son. By the impugned order, the Family Court has held that, the said application could be considered only after the son gets himself examined by the Medical Board/Civil Surgeon, Civil Hospital, Ahmedabad. This is challenged by the wife in this petition. 2. Mr. By the impugned order, the Family Court has held that, the said application could be considered only after the son gets himself examined by the Medical Board/Civil Surgeon, Civil Hospital, Ahmedabad. This is challenged by the wife in this petition. 2. Mr. Mehta, learned advocate for the petitioner wife/mother has submitted that, the Family Court fell in error while deciding the three applications, the details of which are noted in para : 1.1 to 1.3 above and the relief as prayed for in the respective applications ought to have been granted by the Court. Mr. Mehta, learned advocate for the petitioner has taken this Court extensively through the pleadings on record, more particularly the contents of the applications and the reasons recorded by the Family Court, Ahmedabad in the impugned orders and has submitted that the impugned orders call for interference. It is submitted that these petitions be allowed and the prayers made in the respective applications be granted. 3. 3.1 On the other hand, Ms. Aishwarya Gupta, learned advocate for the respondent husband/father has submitted that, the dispute in all these three petitions is not with regard to the maintenance to be paid by the husband to the wife, but the dispute is with regard to the maintenance to be paid by the father to the son, who is aged about 25 years, by this time. It is submitted that there is matrimonial dispute between the husband and the wife. It is submitted that, they have two children both sons, who have attained majority. It is submitted that the elder one is married also and he is settled in his life. It is further submitted that, the younger son Parshwa has also attained the age of majority on 26.06.2011. It is submitted that there is no legal obligation on the father to pay any amount to his any of the sons. It is submitted that, therefore the Family Court has not committed any error by rejecting the applications moved for enhancement of the amount to be paid/enhanced. It is submitted that these petitions be dismissed. 3.2 Without prejudice to what is submitted above, it is the case of the respondent husband/father that, his son Parshwa is an active politician - closely connected with the Bhartiya Janata Party. It is submitted that these petitions be dismissed. 3.2 Without prejudice to what is submitted above, it is the case of the respondent husband/father that, his son Parshwa is an active politician - closely connected with the Bhartiya Janata Party. In support of this submission, learned advocate for the respondent has drawn the attention of this Court to the contents of the affidavit in reply dated 17.01.2018 (in each petition) and the annexures thereto, with specific reference to the photographs (35 photographs), to point out that, the son - Parshwa does not need any support from anybody to maintain him. It is submitted that these petitions be dismissed. 4. Having heard learned advocates for the respective parties and having considered the material on record, this Court finds as under. 4.1 It is not in dispute that the subject matter of all these three petitions pertain to some amount to be paid/enhanced/reimbursed by the respondent father, to his son, whose date of birth is 27.06.1993. He has attained the age of majority on 26.06.2011. It is not the case of anybody that, the said son Parshwa is a person with unsound mind, whose cause may be required to be taken up by some other person. 4.2 The cause of the son taken up by his mother therefore needs to be seen, vis-a-vis her locus. Even if the question of the locus of the mother is not questioned, even on merits, this Court finds that, since the son Parshwa has attained the age of majority on 26.06.2011, no liability could be fastened on the father, to pay maintenance to the said son. If the son claims that any amount of maintenance is required to be paid by father to him, for any valid reason, it would be necessary for the said person (the son) to claim it by filing appropriate application, along with necessary document/evidence, including the medical evidence, if he so desires. The son has not moved any such application. Not only that, when the Family Court has directed that he should appear before the Medical Board/Civil Surgeon, even that order is challenged before this Court. 4.3 This Court has taken into consideration the contents of the affidavit in reply dated 17.01.2018 (in each petition) and the annexures thereto. Though about one year has passed, there is no rejoinder to it. 4.3 This Court has taken into consideration the contents of the affidavit in reply dated 17.01.2018 (in each petition) and the annexures thereto. Though about one year has passed, there is no rejoinder to it. The photographs (35 photographs) annexed with the said replies, with ‘whose who’, indicate that, there is substantial force in the submission of learned advocate for the respondent that, the son does not need any financial support from anybody to maintain him, at least he can not be permitted to claim it, as a matter of right. At this juncture, it is also noted that, this Court had the benefit of observing the demeanor of the father and the son, both, since they had appeared before the Court and the Court had interacted with them, as noted in the orders dated 28.11.2018 and 30.11.2018. It is a matter of record that the son - Parshwa claims that :- he is a politician at Bhartiya Janta Party, he is executive member (BJYM) Kanavati Mahanagar, he has 2000 + fans/followers on his facebook account, he is an idol to many of his followers, he also manages ‘Parshwaparikhfanclub’ and ‘Friends Who Like BJYM Parshwa Parikh’. He also does various social services, including distribution of butter milk etc. On conjoint consideration of the material on record and the interaction with both of them by the Court, an unmistakable picture has emerged before this Court that, a scared father is pitted against his politician son. 4.4 Considering the totality, this Court arrives at the conclusion that, not only the Family Court has not committed any error while recording the orders, which are challenged in these petitions, the reluctance on the part of the son Parshwa to appear before the medical authorities shows complete lack of bona fide on his part. If at all any modification is required, it may be to the extent that, the father was not required to request the Court that let his son be asked to appear before the medical authorities. If the major son wants any amount to be paid by his father, there should be an application by the said son, to ask for it. Even at that stage, it may be open to the father to contest the claim of the son, including of going to the medical authorities. 5. If the major son wants any amount to be paid by his father, there should be an application by the said son, to ask for it. Even at that stage, it may be open to the father to contest the claim of the son, including of going to the medical authorities. 5. Considering the totality, this Court finds that, none of the three impugned orders calls for any interference. All these three petitions therefore need to be dismissed. 6. In view of above, all these three petitions are dismissed. Independently also, so far Special Civil Application No. 18132 of 2017 is concerned, it would not survive in view of the findings recorded by this Court in para : 4.4 above. Rule is discharged in Special Civil Application No.18132 of 2017. Interim relief is vacated. Notice is discharged in Special Civil Application Nos.18133 of 2017 and 18134 of 2017. 7. It is clarified that, non-interference by this Court in Special Civil Application No.18133 of 2017, is not to mean confirmation of the said order, enhancing the amount of monthly maintenance from Rs.13,000/- to Rs.18,000/-, payable by the husband to the wife, since that part of the order is not the subject matter of the said petition and in the event, that part of the order is challenged by either of the parties, the same shall be examined on its own merits by the Court.