Thursday, 14, May, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Harikishan Choudhary S/O Late ... vs Shivani Choudhary D/O Shri ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 1822 Raj/2

Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 1822 Raj/2
Judgement Date : 18 February, 2021

Rajasthan High Court
Harikishan Choudhary S/O Late ... vs Shivani Choudhary D/O Shri ... on 18 February, 2021
Bench: Sabina, Manoj Kumar Vyas
       HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                   BENCH AT JAIPUR

           D.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 97/2021

Harikishan Choudhary S/o Late Shri Ramswaroop Choudhary,
Aged About 64 Years, R/o In Front Of Ramavtar General Store,
Paparwali Gali, Near Namdev School, Jorawarpura, Nokha,
Bikaner (Raj.)
                                                                   ----Appellant
                                   Versus
1.     Shivani Choudhary D/o Shri Narendra Singh, R/o 82/315
       Pratap Nagar, Sanganer Jaipur.
2.     Deepak Choudhary S/o Shri Harikishan Choudhary, R/o
       82/315 Pratap Nagar, Sanganer Jaipur Through Mother
       Smt Shivani Rajput.
                                                                ----Respondents

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Vinod Goyal, Advocate

HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR VYAS

Judgment / Order

18/02/2021

Appellant has filed the appeal challenging the order dated

14.12.2020 passed by the Family Court, whereby, application

under Section 26 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter

referred as "the Act") filed by the respondents, was allowed.

Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that

respondent No.2 had become major in the year 2017. Hence, the

application moved by the respondents under Section 26 of the Act

was liable to dismissed.

Section 26 of the Act reads as under:-

"Custody of children. - In any proceeding under this Act, the court may, from time to time, pass such interim orders and make such provisions in the decree as it may deem just and proper with respect to the custody, maintenance and

(2 of 3) [CMA-97/2021]

education of minor children, consistently with their wishes, wherever possible, and may, after the decree, upon application by petition for the purpose, make from time to time, all such orders and provisions with respect to the custody, maintenance and education of such children as might have been made by such decree or interim orders in case the proceeding for obtaining such decree were still pending, and the court may also from time to time revoke, suspend or vary any such orders and provisions previously made:

[Provided that the application with respect to the maintenance and education of the minor children, pending the proceeding for obtaining such decree, shall, as far as possible, be disposed of within sixty days from the date of service of notice on the respondent]."

Thus, as per the above provision, the Court may from time

to time pass an order with regard to custody, maintenance and

education of minor children.

In the present case, admittedly, marriage of appellant and

respondent No.1 has been dissolved and decree of divorce has

been passed. Respondent No.2 was born out of the wedlock of the

appellant and respondent No.1.

Respondents moved an application under Section 26 of the

Act praying that appellant be directed to pay the amount incurred

on the education of respondent No.2. Learned Family Court vide

impugned order dated 14.12.2020 allowed the application moved

by the respondents and directed the appellant to pay Rs. 31,160/-

to respondent No.2 towards his education expenses. Hence, the

present appeal by the appellant.

It was the case of the respondent that an amount of Rs.

8,660/- was due as arrears vis-à-vis education expenses qua

class-11. Respondent No.2 required expenses to the tune of Rs.

22,500/- towards education expenses for class-12. In this regard,

respondents had placed reliance on the certificates issued by the

school. Respondent No.2 became 18 year old on 28.08.2017.

(3 of 3) [CMA-97/2021]

Thus, when the Session for class-12 had started in April 2017,

respondent No.2 was still a minor.

In these circumstances, learned Family Court had, thus,

rightly directed the appellant to pay Rs. 31,160/- towards

education expenses of respondent No.2.

No ground for interference is made out.

Dismissed.

                                    (MANOJ KUMAR VYAS),J                                          (SABINA),J

                                   Sunita/Hemant-17









Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
 

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : IJJ

 

LatestLaws Partner Event : Smt. Nirmala Devi Bam Memorial International Moot Court Competition

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter