Maintenance | Father's Duty to Support Daughters Until Self-Sufficiency or Marriage: Karnataka High Court

Karnataka High Court dismissed the father’s revision petition challenging the Family Court’s order requiring him to pay maintenance and educational expenses for his two daughters. The judgment underscores a father’s legal obligation to financially support his children until they are self-sufficient or married.

The case originated from a petition filed in the Family Court by the two daughters of the petitioner, seeking maintenance, educational expenses, and litigation costs under Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (replacing Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973). The daughters contended that their father, despite being financially capable, had neglected his responsibility to provide for their maintenance. They argued that they were unable to support themselves, with one daughter still a minor and the other a non-earning adult. The Family Court, after assessing evidence, ordered the father to pay ₹6,000 per month to each daughter, in addition to ₹1,04,000 for educational expenses and ₹5,000 towards litigation costs.

The petitioner, disputing the Family Court's decision, filed a revision petition in the Karnataka High Court, asserting an inability to pay and alleging a lack of procedural fairness, as he claimed he was not given sufficient opportunity to present objections.

The court examined the petitioner’s claim that he was financially unable to support his daughters, as well as his assertion that he should not be held liable due to his divorce from their mother. Justice Kinagi emphasized that as the daughters’ legal guardian, the petitioner was bound to support them until they achieved financial independence or marriage. The court referenced Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, which establishes a parent’s duty to provide for children’s essential needs.

“The petitioner, being a father, is legally bound to maintain his daughters and provide them with a good education,” Justice Kinagi stated, reinforcing the statutory obligation of a father to ensure his children’s welfare regardless of marital disputes with their mother.

The petitioner argued that he was not afforded adequate time by the Family Court to file objections and present evidence. However, the High Court found no procedural error, noting that the petitioner had been given sufficient time but failed to submit the necessary documents. The court emphasized that due process was followed in the Family Court, and the petitioner’s lack of timely response did not constitute a violation of procedural fairness.

“There is no merit in the petitioner’s contention regarding procedural irregularity. The petitioner was given ample opportunity but failed to avail it,” observed Justice Kinagi, affirming the Family Court’s approach in handling the case.

The Karnataka High Court upheld the Family Court’s decision, mandating the father to fulfill his financial responsibilities toward his daughters. Justice Kinagi dismissed the revision petition, agreeing with the Family Court’s assessment of the petitioner’s income and his capacity to pay maintenance. The court noted that the petitioner runs a transport business and owns agricultural land, which provides him a substantial income. Thus, the maintenance amount of ₹6,000 per month per daughter, along with educational and litigation expenses, was deemed reasonable and appropriate.

The court underscored the father’s duty to support his children until they are either self-sufficient or married, aligning with established principles of family law. The High Court clarified that the petitioner’s divorce from the daughters’ mother did not absolve him of this responsibility.

The Karnataka High Court’s ruling reinforces a parent’s statutory duty to ensure the financial well-being of their children, emphasizing that personal disagreements between parents do not affect children’s rights to support. The court found that the Family Court had correctly assessed the petitioner’s financial capability and determined a reasonable maintenance amount. The judgment is a reminder of the obligation parents have towards their children’s education and welfare, even after divorce.

Date of Decision: October 14, 2024