Unmarried Major Christian Daughter Not Entitled To Claim Maintenance From Her Father Unless She Can't Maintain Herself Due To Abnormality: Kerala High Court
The Revision Petition before the Kerala High Court was filed challenging the order of the Family Court.
Justice Kauser Edappagath, Kerala High Court
The Kerala High Court has held that an unmarried Christian daughter who has attained majority is not entitled to claim maintenance from her father in a proceeding under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. (Section 144 of BNSS), unless she is unable to maintain herself by reason of any physical or mental abnormality or injury.
The Revision Petition before the High Court was filed challenging the order of the Family Court.
The Single Bench of Justice Kauser Edappagath held, “The decision of the Full Bench of the Kerala High Court in Mathew Varghese v. Rosamma Varghese [2003 (3) KLT 6 (FB)] only declares that a Christian father is under an obligation to maintain his minor child. Therefore, an unmarried Christian daughter who has attained majority is not entitled to claim maintenance from her father in a proceeding under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. (Section 144 of BNSS), unless she is unable to maintain herself by reason of any physical or mental abnormality or injury. The finding of the Family Court that the respondent No.2 is entitled to maintenance cannot, thus, be sustained.”
Advocate K.M.Madhu represented the Petitioner while Senior Advocate S. Sreekumar represented the Respondent.
Factual Background
The respondent wife and her daughter filed a maintenance case against the petitioner husband before the Family Court, claiming monthly maintenance at the rate of Rs 30,000 and Rs 15,000, respectively. The Family Court, after trial, granted monthly maintenance at the rate of Rs 20,000 to the respondent wife and Rs 10,000 to the respondent child. The Family Court further granted Rs 30,000 to the respondent wife towards the educational expenditure of the child incurred by her from January 2017 to April 2017.
The petitioner assailed the impugned order on the ground that the respondent daughter was a major on the date of the petition, the respondent wife had been living separately without sufficient reason after deserting the petitioner and the wife was employed, thereby having sufficient means to maintain herself.
Reasoning
The Bench referred to Section 125 of Cr.P.C. (Section 144 of BNSS) which limits the claim of maintenance of the child until he or she attains majority. It was noticed that by virtue of Section 125(1)(c) of Cr.P.C. (Section 144(1)(c) of the BNSS), an unmarried daughter, even though she has attained majority, is entitled to maintenance, where she is, by reason of any physical or mental abnormality or injury, unable to maintain herself.
“The scheme under Section 125(1)(c) of Cr.P.C. (Section 144(1)(c) of BNSS), thus, contemplates that a claim of maintenance by a daughter who has attained majority is admissible only when, by reason of any physical or mental abnormality or injury, she is unable to maintain herself”, it stated.
The Bench noted that the petitioner husband did not have a case at all, that the respondent daughter was unable to maintain herself because of any physical or mental abnormality or injury. It also came out in evidence that she is a practising lawyer.
It was further noted that Section 20(3) of the HAMA casts civil liability on the father to maintain his unmarried daughter. The Muslim Personal Law also obliges the father to maintain his unmarried daughter. Considering that the parties were Christians, the Bench found that there was no corresponding personal law applicable to Christians that enables a Christian unmarried daughter to claim maintenance from her father.
The Bench found that there was sufficient reason for the respondent wife to reside in Mumbai, away from the petitioner, and she had given evidence that her ailing younger son was studying in Mumbai and she was staying there for the educational purposes and medical treatment of her ailing son. “Indeed, the right of the wife to be maintained by the husband stems from the corresponding obligation to perform marital duty. But a mother has obligations to both her husband and child. A mother’s parental obligation is generally considered wider in scope than her marital obligation. When a wife chooses to reside away from her husband to provide better treatment and education for her ailing son, it cannot be said that she is living separately without sufficient reason to be disentitled to maintenance under Section 125(4) of Cr.PC (Section 144(4) of BNSS)”, it stated.
The Bench also affirmed that even if the wife has the capability to earn or is earning something, it does not disentitle her from claiming maintenance from her husband. The test is whether the wife can maintain herself, more or less, in the status that her husband had maintained her. “The claim for maintenance by a wife who is unable to maintain herself would also include the expenses incurred by her towards the education of the child who is dependent on her. Merely because the child is a major would not prevent the wife from claiming maintenance from her spouse to meet the needs of the dependent child. Section 125 of Cr.P.C does not prevent such a situation”, it added.
The Bench found no reason to interfere with the monthly maintenance of Rs 20,000 and consolidated educational expenditure of Rs 30,000 granted to the respondent husband. The Bench thus partly allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned order, to the extent it granted monthly maintenance to the respondent daughter.
Cause Title: AB v. PQ (Neutral Citation: 2025:KER:81376)
Appearance
Petitioner: Advocates K.M.Madhu, Vishnuja Ajayan
Respondent: Senior Advocate S. Sreekumar, P. Martin Jose, P.Prijith, Thomas P. Kuruvilla, R. Githesh, Hani P. Nair, Ajay Ben Jose, Manjunath Menon, Naveen A.Varkey, Anna Linda Eden, Harikrishnan S.