The Kerala High Court has ruled that an unmarried Christian daughter who has attained majority cannot claim maintenance from her father under Section 125 CrPC, unless she is unable to support herself due to physical or mental disability.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
KERALA: In a ruling clarifying maintenance rights under criminal law, the Kerala High Court has held that an unmarried Christian daughter who has attained majority cannot claim maintenance from her father under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.), now replaced by Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), unless she is unable to maintain herself due to physical or mental abnormality or injury.
The decision came from Justice Kauser Edappagath, who was hearing a Revision Petition challenging an order of the Family Court that had granted maintenance to both the wife and the adult daughter of the petitioner.
Court’s Observation
Justice Edappagath relied on the Full Bench decision in Mathew Varghese v. Rosamma Varghese [2003 (3) KLT 6 (FB)], which had previously held that a Christian father’s obligation extends only to his minor child.
The Judge noted:
“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 Court, therefore, set aside the Family Court’s finding that had awarded maintenance to the petitioner’s adult daughter.
Case Background
The respondent wife and daughter had filed a maintenance petition before the Family Court seeking ₹30,000 and ₹15,000 per month, respectively.
After the trial, the Family Court granted:
- ₹20,000 per month to the wife,
- ₹10,000 per month to the daughter, and
- ₹30,000 as educational expenses incurred by the wife for their daughter between January and April 2017.
The petitioner husband challenged the order, arguing that:
- The daughter was a major at the time of filing the petition,
- The wife was living separately without sufficient cause, and
- The wife was employed, having enough means to support herself.
Court’s Reasoning and Findings
The Bench referred to Section 125(1)(c) of Cr.P.C. (Section 144(1)(c) of BNSS), which extends a parent’s duty to maintain a major unmarried daughter only if she suffers from a physical or mental disability that prevents her from earning.
Since it was not the husband’s case that the daughter was unable to maintain herself due to such reasons and evidence showed that the daughter was a practising lawyer, the Court held that she was not entitled to maintenance.
The Court also highlighted that, unlike Hindu and Muslim personal laws, which impose an obligation on fathers to maintain unmarried daughters, Christian personal law does not provide such a corresponding right once the daughter becomes a major.
While disallowing maintenance for the daughter, the Court upheld the maintenance awarded to the wife, observing that she had valid reasons to live separately in Mumbai to care for her ailing younger son pursuing education and treatment there.
Justice Edappagath observed:
“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.”
The Court clarified that a wife’s earning capacity alone does not disentitle her from claiming maintenance; what matters is whether she can maintain herself in the same standard of living as during her marriage.
The Kerala High Court partly allowed the Revision Petition, setting aside the Family Court’s direction for maintenance to the daughter, but upholding:
- ₹20,000 monthly maintenance for the wife, and
- ₹30,000 as educational expenses has already been awarded.
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.
Case Title:
VARGHESE KURUVILA @ SUNNY KURUVILA Versus ANNIE VARGHESE
RPFC NO. 157 OF 2021
READ ORDER