Law:

Section:

Family Courts Act (XXXV of 1964)--- ----S.5, Sched. & S.14---Suit for recovery of maintenance allowance of daughter---"Maintenance"--- Connotation--- Plaintiff sought amendment in plaint to add wedding expenditures of the daughter---Amendment in pleadings---Family Court accepted application of plaintiff---Wedding expenditures for daughter---Maintenance allowance, extent of---Jurisdiction of Family Court---Appeal---Scope---Father contended that he was only bound to provide maintenance allowance till marriage of daughter which did not include wedding expenditures of the daughter---Mother's contention was that Family Court had rightly passed the order and that interim order could not be challenged in constitutional jurisdiction of High Court---Validity---Important feature of the present case was as to whether "maintenance" of a daughter included the "marriage expenditures"---Father was bound to maintain a daughter until her marriage and ,in a situation , adult son was to be maintained on the ground of disability---"Maintenance" included food, raiment, and lodging but such definition was neither conclusive nor exhaustive and undoubtedly had wider connotation which was to be given an extended meaning----Marriage of a daughter was not a simple affair and it would be highly unfair to burden the mother alone for such heavy responsibility to bear the expenditures incurred on the marriage of a daughter---Like, the status of Wali had not been conferred either upon father or mother and was left open to the court to determine and give status of Wali to a person to secure welfare of minor, however, giving of such status had direct nexus with the concept of protector---Section 5 read with Sched. of the Family Courts Act, 1964 empowered the Family Court to exercise its jurisdiction with regard to maintenance---Family Court had rightly accepted the application of plaintiff to allow amendment in pleadings with regard to marriage expenses as it would not alter the complexion of the suit---Section 14(3) of Family Courts Act, 1964 provided that no appeal or revision would lie against interim order passed by Family Court which could not be bypassed by bringing under attack such…

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492