MATHEW VARGHESE Vs. ROSAMMA VARGHESE FB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Is a Christian father under an obligation to maintain his minor child More than three decades back, a Full Bench of this Court had considered this question in The Commissioner of Income Tax, Kerala v. P.M. Paily Pillai, 1972 KLT 24 . Following an earlier decision of a Division Bench in Chacko Daniel v. Daniel Joshua, 1952 KLT 595 , it was held that the duty of the father was an imperfect obligation. It was not an actionable wrong. Thus, it was concluded that there is no legal obligation on the part of the Christian father to maintain his minor child. Accordingly, the question was answered in the negative. The correctness of this view was questioned in these two cases. It was pointed out that discordant notes had been struck after the decision in Paily Pillais case. The issue was referred to a Full Bench. Initially, the matter was listed before a Bench of three Judges. However, in view of the fact that a Full Bench had already considered the matter, the case was placed before this Bench.

(2.) The facts may be briefly noticed.

(3.) On April 29, 1979, Ms. Rosamma and Mr. Mathew Varghese were married. After having stayed together for a few days, the wife had left for her place of work in Germany. The husband had visited Germany. On October 13, 1980, a son Mathew alias Tishan was prematurely delivered. In course of time, the relationship between the husband and wife had got strained. Even the paternity of the child appears to have become the cause of conflict between the parties.