wp10312
ssp
RameshGajananRege
vs.
GauriRameshRege
UnionofIndia
C
ou
rt
INTHEHIGHCOURTOFJUDICATUREATBOMBAY
CIVILAPPELATEJURISDICTION
WRITPETITIONNO.10312OF2014
...Petitioner
...Respondents
ig
h
ShriB.M.Patwardhani/bMr.SureshSabradforthe
petitioner
Nonefortherespondents
JUDGMENT:
ba
y
CORAM:A.S.OKA,&
A.P.BHANGALE,JJ.
DATE:MARCH18,2015
ConstitutionofIndia,thepetitionerhaschallenged
the constitutional validity of subsection 3 of
om
wp10312
forissuing adirectiontoprovidearesidenceto
rt
her. Thecontentionofthepetitioneristhatthe
firstrespondentisaBritishcitizenandsheisnot
C
ou
domiciledinIndia.Anapplicationwasmadebythe
petitionerforrejectionofthesaidpetitionfiled
bythefirstrespondent.Thesaidapplicationalong
with interim application in the said petition were
decidedbythelearnedJudgeoftheFamilyCourtby
order dated 9th August 2005. Thereafter, an
ig
h
interimmaintenancegrantedundertheorderdated9 th
August 2005. By the said order dated 9 th August
2005,theprayerofthepetitionerforrejectionof
ba
y
om
Rs.10,000/tothefirstrespondent.
3
Thesaidapplicationmadebythepetitionerfor
petitioneristhatsubsection(3)ofsection20of
wp10312
thesaidActisviolativeofthefundamentalrights
rt
C
ou
thatasfarasthesubsection(2)ofsection20of
thesaidActisconcerned,itmakesnodistinction
betweenamaleorafemalechild.Hissubmissionis
that under subsection (3) of section 20, the law
provides that it is the obligation of a person to
maintainhisdaughterwhoisunmarriedwhensheis
ig
h
fatherisundernoobligationtomaintainunmarried
sonafterheattainsmajority,thereisnoreasonto
grantsuchabenefittotheunmarrieddaughter.His
ba
y
submissionisthatthereisnojustifiablereasonto
protectonlyadaughter. He,therefore,urgedthat
theprovisionofsubsection(3)isarbitraryandis
violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of
om
Heurgedthatthefirstrespondentdaughteris
notacitizenofIndiaandsheisnotdomiciledin
India. He,therefore,submittedthatthesaidAct
isnotapplicabletothefirstrespondent.Heurged
thatthefirstrespondentisveryaffluent.
Wedealwiththefirstsubmissioninsupportof
rt
wp10312
C
ou
unconstitutional. Section20ofthesaidActreads
thus:
ig
h
astheparentortheunmarrieddaughter,as
the case may be, is unable to maintain
himself or herself out of his or her own
earningsorotherproperty.
Subsections(1)and(2)ofsection20applyto
ba
y
achildwhethermaleorfemale.Obligationscreated
by subsections (1) and (2) of section 20 to
maintainareinrelationtothesonsordaughtersso
long as they do not attain majority. Subsection
om
wp10312
equalsarebeingtreatedasunequalsisnotatall
rt
C
ou
application.
ig
h
differentfromtheclassofunmarriedmajordaughter
and, therefore, the discrimination which is
prohibitedunderArticle15isnotatallattracted.
ba
y
Therefore,challengetotheconstitutionalvalidity
mustfail.
9
om
concerned,thesameappliestoallpersonsnamedin
section2. Itappliestoanychild,legitimateor
illegitimate, both of whose parents are Hindu,
Budhist, Jaina or Sikh by religion. The
applicabilityofthesaidActdoesnotdependupon
the nationality of the child or domicile of the
child.Ifboththeparentsofthechildareeither
HinduorBuddhistorJainaorSikhbyreligion,the
said Act becomes applicable to such children.
Moreover, as per subsection (1) of section 20 of
thesaidAct,theobligationtomaintainhisother
childrenisofa personwhoisHindubyreligion.
Therefore,applicabilityoftheActdoesnotdepend
wp10312
onthenationalityordomicileofthechild.Weare
rt
C
ou
isnotdomiciledinIndiaorwhoisnotacitizenof
Indiaisanaltogetherseparateissue.
10
11
ig
h
saidAct.
contentionsraisedbythepetitioner. Thepetition
deservestoberejected. However,Wehavemadeno
adjudication on the merits of the pending
ba
y
proceedings.
12
WritPetitionisrejected.
(A.P.BHANGALE,J.)
(A.S.OKA,J.)
om