Parents obligated to spend on education of their children: Bombay HC

The HC quashed the magistrate court order after the son stated that he will repay Rs 15 lakh to his father in three months. The Court has held legally challenging such financial transactions shows deterioration of social values.

The court also observed that such litigations are the root cause behind piling of cases in courts. (Representational Image)

Quashing an issue of process order of the magistrate court against a man, accused by his father of not repaying Rs 29 lakh that he had paid for his education in the US, the Bombay High Court has held that parents are obligated to spend money on the education of their children and legally challenging such financial transactions shows deterioration of social values.

Issue of process means that if the magistrate court, while taking cognizance of an offence, thinks that there is sufficient ground for proceeding, it may summon the accused to be present at a certain time before such a magistrate.

While deciding the matter earlier this week, Justice Mridula Bhatkar observed: “To educate a child and spend money on his education as per the capacity is an obligation of the parents and if it is discharged, then the child should be grateful and it is not a legal issue. Such monetary transactions are out of love, affection, care and concern, which should not be transformed into litigations.”

“Court matters reflect the mirror image of culture, maturity and problem areas of the society in the country. The present litigation speaks in volume about the deterioration of social values on which exclusively the legal relationships stand,” the court said, adding that such litigations are the root cause behind piling of cases in courts.

The HC quashed the magistrate court order after the son stated that he will repay Rs 15 lakh to his father in three months. He also said he was ready to take care of his father.

In 2015, the father had filed a private complaint before the magistrate court, accusing his son of criminal breach of trust and cheating on the ground that he had borrowed Rs 29 lakh from him between May 2004 and March 2009 for his education in US but failed to return the money. He had furnished a letter dated June 27, 2008, written by his son, promising to repay Rs 29 lakh along with interest at 10.5 per cent. In his complaint, the father did not mention how he was related to the borrower. The magistrate court, while hearing the complaint, had ordered issue of process against the son. Following this, he had moved HC.

The son’s lawyer informed the HC that the father did not disclose the relationship before the magistrate court. He said the man’s parents had divorced in 2014. During the divorce proceedings, the son had stood by his mother and, so, out of vengeance, his father filed this complaint, the lawyer said.

The father’s lawyer told the court that the matter should not be looked at emotionally or by keeping the relationship on the background. “The matter needs a very practical approach… as it is a monetary transaction between two adults, the father did not mention about the relationship between them…,” the lawyer said.