ANIL KUMAR Vs. GOPIKUTTAN NAIR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The only question for decision in this second appeal is as to whether a suit for maintenance at the instance of a minor plaintiff represented by a next friend is maintainable against the father who is the natural guardian of the minor under the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the Guardianship Act).

(2.) The Ist plaintiff was a minor 9 months old on the date of the suit. He was represented by his maternal uncle as the next friend and the suit was for a declaration that the defendant the father of the minor 1st plaintiff is liable to maintain the Ist plaintiff and for future maintenance from the date of suit at the rate of Rs. 50/- per month. The plaint, refers to the marriage of Krishnakumari Amma to the defendant in May 1972, the birth of the Ist plaintiff during the subsistence of the marriage, and the divorce between Krishnakumari Amma and the defendant as per a registered document Ext. B1, at a time when the 1st plaintiff was only forty days old. The 1st plaintiff is being looked after and maintained by the 2nd plaintiff his maternal uncle. The defendant in his written statement contended that as per the divorce deed Ext. B1, the mother had undertaken to maintain the child. She is possessed of 61 cents of double crop paddy land in absolute rights and 21 cents as per an Otti deed, from the income of which the minor is being maintained.

(3.) The Trial Court found the defendant liable to maintain the child and granted a decree for maintenance at the rate of Rs. 30/- per month from the date of the suit. In appeal at the instance of the defendant, the lower appellate court has reversed the decision of the Trial Court and has dismissed the suit on the ground that the next friend is not competent to represent the minor and file a suit for maintenance against the father who is the legal and natural guardian of the minor under the Guardianship Act.