The Kerala High Court recently delivered a significant ruling concerning the maintenance rights of a Christian daughter, holding that an unmarried daughter who has attained majority cannot claim maintenance from her father under Christian personal law. This stands in contrast to specific provisions found in Muslim personal laws and the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act (HAMA).
The Revision Petition
The bench of Justice Dr. Kauser Edappagath was hearing a revision petition filed by a 65-year-old Christian man. The petitioner was challenging an earlier order by a Family Court that had directed him to pay monthly maintenance of ₹20,000 to his estranged wife and ₹10,000 to his 27-year-old unmarried daughter.
The father argued that his daughter was a major at the time of filing the petition and was therefore not entitled to maintenance. He also contested the maintenance awarded to his wife, claiming she had deserted him and possessed sufficient means to maintain herself.
High Court’s Ruling on Daughter’s Maintenance
The High Court partially allowed the revision petition, setting aside the part of the Family Court order that had directed the petitioner to pay maintenance to his unmarried daughter.
The court focused its reasoning on the absence of a specific provision in Christian personal law:
“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. But there is no corresponding personal law applicable to Christians that enables a Christian unmarried daughter to claim maintenance from her father… the finding of the family court that the respondent number 2 is entitled to maintenance cannot be thus sustained,” the court stated in its ruling delivered on October 29.
The court further pointed to the scheme contemplated under Section 144(1)(c) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNSS). Under this statute, a daughter who has attained majority is admissible to claim maintenance only if she is unable to maintain herself due to any physical or mental abnormality or injury.
Ruling on Wife’s Maintenance
Conversely, the High Court did not agree with the petitioner’s argument that his wife was living separately without sufficient reason.
The wife’s counsel stated that she was living in Mumbai to support their ailing son’s educational purposes and medical treatment. The court acknowledged that a mother’s parental obligation is “generally considered wider in scope than her marital obligation.”
Consequently, the High Court refused to interfere with the Family Court’s order that directed the petitioner to pay ₹20,000 monthly maintenance to his wife and a consolidated amount of ₹30,000 granted to her for educational expenses.