MAHALINGA BHAT Vs. PARVATHI AMMA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been referred to a Division Bench forbearing and disposal under Sec. 8 of the Karnataka High Court Act by Justice Venkataswami, who heard the appeal in the first instance, since he was of the opinion that it Involved a substantial question of law as to whether under Sec. 20 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 the minor illegitimate children of a Hindu father are entitled to separate maintenance when their mother is not so entitled.

(2.) The respondents-plaintiffs brought the suit for maintenance alleging that respondent 1 is the wife and respondents 2 and 3 are the daughters of the appellant-defendant. The appellant contested the suit. The trial Court held that the plaintiffs claim is barred under the Madras Hindu (Bigamy Prevention and Divorce) Act, 1949 and the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 since on the date of the marriage between appellant and respondent-1 there was already living a wife of the appellant by a prior marriage. It also held that the minor plaintiffs were properly represented by their guardian mother respondent-1 plaintiff 1. It, therefore, thought it unnecessary to determine the quantum of maintenance and dismissed the suit. The lower appellate Court agreed with the finding of the trial Court that the marriage between appellant and respondent 1 is void, but it held that respondents 2 and 3, being the illegitimate children, are entitled to maintenance under Sec. 20 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act. It, therefore, allowed the appeal and remanded the suit to the trial Court for fresh disposal after recording its finding, on the additional issues indicated by it. It is against this decision the present second appeal has been filed.

(3.) We are concerned in this appeal only with regard to the claim of respondents 2 and 3, the illegitimate daughters of the appellant. Under Sec. 20(2) of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 an Illegitimate child may claim maintenance from his or her father or mother so long as the child is a minor, and under Sec. 20 (1) of the Act a Hindu father is bound fitting his life-time to maintain his illegitimate children. Hence the liability of the appellant to maintain respondents-2 and 3 cannot be denied.but what is contended by Mr. Ganapathy Bhat, appearing for the appellant, it that there is no provision in Sec. 20 of the Act for separate maintenance being awarded to illegitimate children, that prior to the enactment of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act an illegitimate daughter had no right to claim maintenance from her father and since the right is given to her for the, first time under the Act, it must be strictly construed. He has referred to Sec. 18 Cl.(2) of the same Act, which sets out the circumstances under which a Hindu wife is entitled to live separately from her husband without forfeiting her claim to maintenance. His contention is that there is no similar provision under Sec. 20 of the Act.