Section 20 Domestic Violence Act Covers Daughter’s Education Expenses; Father Can’t Refuse Payment Merely Because She Attained Majority: Karnataka High Court
The High Court dismissed a father’s revision petition and upheld directions requiring him to pay Rs 16 lakh towards his daughter’s postgraduate medical education expenses.
The Karnataka High Court has held that monetary relief under Section 20 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, is wide enough to cover a daughter’s educational expenses, including postgraduate studies, and a father cannot resist payment merely because she has attained majority.
The Court upheld concurrent orders directing the father to pay Rs. 16 lakh towards his daughter’s M.D. course expenses and rejected the argument that she should fund her education through a bank loan.
The Court was hearing a criminal revision petition filed by the father challenging the Trial Court and Appellate Court orders directing him to pay the amount towards the daughter’s first-year postgraduate medical college fee and allied educational expenses.
A Bench of Justice H.P. Sandesh, while affirming the father’s obligation, observed that “Section 20 of the DV Act is for monetary relief in addition to the maintenance and the father has to meet the educational expenses of the daughter, whether it is for under graduation or post graduation, and it is the obligation on the part of the father to pay the maintenance.”
Advocate S. Balakrishnan appeared for the petitioner, while Advocate Ajay Prabhu M. appeared for the respondent.
Background
The daughter had moved an application before the Magistrate under Section 20(d) of the DV Act seeking Rs. 16 lakh towards her first-year postgraduate medical education. She stated that she had cleared NEET and secured admission through the Karnataka Examination Authority to M.D. Dermatology at Fr. Muller’s Institute of Medical Education and Research, and had to meet the fee and other educational expenses.
The father opposed the application, contending that the daughter had already completed MBBS with his financial support, had attained majority, was receiving a stipend during postgraduate studies, and could not invoke the DV Act for such relief. He also disputed aspects of her financial need and argued that the application was intended to harass him.
The Trial Court allowed the application after considering the admission documents, fee payment material, the daughter’s lack of independent income and the father’s financial capacity. The Appellate Court affirmed the order, holding that even though the daughter had attained majority, the father had a duty to meet her educational expenses when she and her mother had no other income. The father then approached the High Court in revision.
Court’s Observations
The High Court framed the core issue as whether an unmarried major daughter could invoke Section 20 of the DV Act for monetary relief to pursue postgraduate education, and whether her attainment of majority disentitled her from claiming such relief.
The father relied on decisions concerning the definition of “aggrieved person”, “child”, and the limits of maintenance under Section 125 CrPC, including Abhilasha v. Parkash (2021). The daughter relied on judgments recognising the breadth of Section 20 DV Act and the obligation of parents to support education, including Neelima Choure v. Vijay Choure (2025).
The Court noted that Abhilasha (2021) concerned maintenance under Section 125 CrPC and the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, whereas the present dispute arose under the DV Act, a special enactment with a broader monetary relief framework.
The Court emphasised the daughter’s continuing education. It recorded that she had pursued MBBS, secured an all-India rank, obtained admission to postgraduate medical studies, and produced material showing payment of substantial fees. The Court also noted that her medical education had begun when both parents were living together, and the later family dispute could not defeat her continuing educational support.
The Court stated: “The Court has to take note of that the daughter is not earning money and she is pursuing her education and the same is a continuous education of under graduation and post graduation.”
The Court also relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Neelima Choure (2025), where it was observed that a daughter has a legally enforceable right to secure educational expenses from her parents within their financial capacity.
The Court examined Sections 2(a), 2(b) and 20 of the DV Act and referred to Jagadesan v. State of Tamil Nadu (2015), where the Madras High Court had discussed Sections 12, 20 and 23 of the Act. It noted that Section 20 is not confined to conventional maintenance alone; its language permits monetary relief to meet expenses and losses suffered by the aggrieved person and children.
The Court observed: “The expressions, “but is not limited to” in Section 20(1) of the Act and “in addition to maintenance”, have wide connotation and amplitude and the power of the Magistrate is not restricted.”
The Court reasoned that if Section 20(d) were confined narrowly, the words “but is not limited to” and “in addition to” would lose their purpose. Educational expenses could therefore be considered as part of monetary relief where facts justified such an order.
The Court also noted that interim monetary relief could be granted under the DV Act on the basis of affidavits and documents, and rejected the father’s argument that the Trial Court could not have passed the order without recording evidence.
The Court rejected the contention that the daughter’s majority, by itself, extinguished the father’s obligation to meet her educational expenses. It relied on the broader protective purpose of the DV Act and the concept of economic abuse, which includes deprivation of financial resources to which an aggrieved person is entitled under law or custom.
Quoting the reasoning adopted in Jagadesan (2015), the Court noted: “Father has an obligation to provide love and affection, righteousness basic amenities and the most important among others, health and education and the necessities of life. He has a unique role in the family. Protection intended in the Act is exhaustive. He is legally and morally obligated to provide all material needs and responsible to provide means of livelihood in all forms. His role is not stopped on the child attaining majority.”
The High Court held that the father’s suggestion that the daughter could take a bank loan could not be a reason to set aside the orders passed by the courts below.
The Court also considered the father’s financial capacity. It noted that the Appellate Court had examined his assets, loans, business transactions and financial records. The father was found to be doing business, handling transactions running into crores and capable of availing and repaying loans.
The Court held: “When such being the case, I do not find any force in the contention of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner that the father is not liable to pay any educational expenses after she has attained the majority.”
The Court therefore found no error in the concurrent findings of the Trial Court and Appellate Court.
Conclusion
The High Court dismissed the criminal revision petition and upheld the order directing the father to pay Rs. 16 lakh towards the daughter’s postgraduate medical education expenses.
Cause Title: VC v. VPC
