news details |
|
|
| PIL on quashment of word 'minor child' from section 488 of CrPC | | ** HC leaves issue to be considered by legislature | | JAMMU, Apr 16: In a PIL, seeking to quash the word "minor child" from clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 488 of CrPC by contending that as per the amended provision on reaching the age of 18 years, children are not entitled to get maintenance from their parents, a high court division bench of Chief Justice N Paul Vasanthakumar and Justice Bansi Lal Bhat dismissed the petition, leaving the contention raised in it to be considered by the legislature at an appropriate time.
According to PIL, in the impugned amendment, legislature has defined the child as a minor child, i.e; one who has not attained maturity and as a consequence of the definition, maintenance is stopped at the age of 18 years when they require it most for being in the crucial phase of their studies. The bench, after hearing the two sides, observed that declaring the right of a child to get education as a fundamental right up to the age of 14 years, "we are unable to sustain the argument of the petitioner to declare the amendment as invalid. However, after 14 years also, parents having means are morally bound to extend all help to their children to pursue further studies". In the case of a point raised by the petitioner that the persons marrying second wife were not looking after the children born to the first wife beyond 18 years even though they were unable to maintain themselves, the bench observed that this contention also could not be appreciated as cases of such nature would be few and far between and such persons could avail the civil remedy and merely because one or other father was not looking after the son or the daughter of the first wife beyond 18 years of age, it could not be a reason to set aside the amendment. "It is well settled proposition of law that mere possibility of misuse of the provisions is not a ground to declare the provision as invalid. In such circumstances, even though we appreciate the efforts made by the petitioner in person, having regard to the limited jurisdiction vested with this court, this court is unable to find any reason to declare the amendment as invalid," the bench said. Consequently, the court dismissed the petition, leaving the coxntention raised in it to be considered by the legislature at an appropriate time. (JNF) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
STOCK UPDATE |
|
|
 |
| BSE
Sensex |
 |
| NSE
Nifty |
|
|
| |
CRICKET UPDATE |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
