HULASHCHAND PEPARAH Vs. PREMCHAND PEPARAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) We are of opinion that the decisions of the lower Courts ought to be reversed. We find no authority, either in the Hindu law, or in the Jain shastras, to support the position that a father is obliged to support a grown-up son. It is alleged that the plaintiff was laboring under illness, and that he is, therefore, entitled, in justice and in equity, to receive maintenance from his father, notwithstanding that he has arrived at majority. But illness was never made the ground of the plaintiff's action; and even if it had been, we do not see any reason why a temporary disorder of the stomach should render it obligatory on the defendant to support the plaintiff, when no such obligation exists in law. The decisions of both the Courts below are, therefore, reversed, but under the circumstances of this case, without costs either in the lower Courts or in this Court.