While upholding an order decreeing the suit in favour of a daughter, the Delhi High Court has held that the up-bringing of the child is the independent legal responsibility of a parent and investments such as PPF cannot be used by the father towards the maintenance merely because there is a marital discord.

The High Court was considering a Regular First Appeal filed under Section 96 read with Order XLI of the CPC (CPC) preferred by the Defendant/Appellant (father) against the Judgment whereby the Suit of the Plaintiff (daughter) was decreed by the Additional District Judge under Order XII Rule 6 CPC for a sum of Rs.8,13,853.79.

The Single Bench of Justice Neena Bansal Krishna held, “In order to understand the controversy, it would be significant to note that a parent during the childhood may make investment and create a corpus by putting savings annually, in some account, but essentially it is an investment to be utilized in future. However, the maintenance is the day-today expenditure in the up-bringing of the child which is the independent legal responsibility of a parent. Merely because of a marital discord, the investments cannot be used by the father, towards the maintenance as it would simply amount to utilization of the child’s money for the discharge of the legal responsibility of the father.

Advocate Rajnish Kumar Jha represented the Appellant while Advocate Shubham Gupta represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

The plaintiff, who is the daughter of the Defendant, was the beneficiary of a PPF Account which was opened in a Bank by the Defendant/her father. The Plaintiff claimed that on maturity, the PPF Account allegedly unlawfully, without process of law and without informing the Plaintiff, was closed in 2017 and the entire amount of Rs 8,13,853.79 was withdrawn by the father. While taking out this amount, he had given an undertaking to the Bank that he would spend the entire withdrawn amount of the PPF Account on the education and welfare of the Plaintiff / his daughter, which was never done. The Plaintiff claimed that she was a BBA student and, in the absence of funds, she was finding it difficult to meet her educational and other expenses.

The Plaintiff attained the age of majority in 2016, and when she applied to the Bank to convert her minor PPF Account into a major/normal Account in her own name (removing the guardian’s name), the Bank refused to do so. She was told that the said PPF Account was closed by the Defendant. The plaintiff claimed that there were matrimonial disputes between her mother and father/ Defendant, and she was living with her mother. Her father has taken away all her funds, only to pressurize the mother by putting them under financial constraint.

The plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of Rs 8,13,853.79 along with pendente lite and future interest. An application under Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC was filed on behalf of the Plaintiff for judgment on admissions made by the Defendant. The District Judge, in the impugned Order, observed that there was a categorical admission of withdrawal of Rs 8,13,853.79, which the Defendant had undertaken to utilise the amount for the benefit of the Plaintiff. The Suit was decreed for the entire amount along with interest. Aggrieved thereby, the Defendant filed the appeal before the Apex Court.

Reasoning

The Bench noted that the account had been closed and money was taken out by the father in accordance with the PPF Act and the closure was not illegal. The Bench held, “As discussed above, being the investment in the name of the child, she was entitled to receive the amount. The father may have taken the money to which the Plaintiff was entitled, but it was only in the fiduciary capacity, as a Guardian, but cannot be utilized by the father to off-set his responsibility of maintenance, towards the child.”

As per the Bench, the amount could not have been transferred by the father to his own account, and he was liable to give this money to his daughter. The Bench further noted that the defendant was paying Rs 12,000 to the Plaintiff, pursuant to an order of the Family Court, but that was in recognition of his responsibility to maintain his daughter.

“Learned District Judge has rightly observed that the responsibility to maintain the child, is an independent right of the father and it cannot be claimed to be adjusted against the amount of Rs.8,13,853.79/-, which was an investment made by the father”, it stated while also adding, “Likewise, Appellant may have been paying Rs.35,000/- per month to his wife / Plaintiff‟s mother, as maintenance, but the right of wife to maintenance is also an independent right and Plaintiff cannot be denied right to money, to which she is lawfully entitled.”

Thus, holding that the District Judge had rightly exercised discretion under Order XII Rule 6 of CPC to decree the Suit of the Respondent daughter for the entire sum of Rs 8,13,853.79 along with interest, the Bench dismissed the appeal.

Cause Title: A v. B (Neutral Citation: 2026:DHC:6228)

Appearance

Appellant: Advocates Rajnish Kumar Jha, Dolli Rani

Respondent: Advocate Shubham Gupta

Click here to read/download Order


Delhi High CourtJustice Neena Bansal Krishna

Tulip Kanth

Assistant Editor

Tulip Kanth is an Assistant Editor at Verdictum having over 5 years of experience in the field of legal journalism and editing. She extensively covers judgments of the Supreme Court, High Courts as well as Tribunals. She has previously worked with a legal publishing website where she oversaw the work of other editors and has also created updates on notifications of different Government Ministries. She holds an English Honours Degree from SGTB Khalsa College, Delhi University and has completed her LLB course with specialisation in Corporate Law from Amity University.