E-Paper
Christian unmarried daughter cannot claim maintenance from father under personal laws: Kerala HC
The high court partially allowed the revision petition, setting aside the family court order that had directed the petitioner to pay maintenance towards his unmarried daughter
The Kerala high court recently held that a Christian unmarried daughter cannot claim maintenance from her father as there is no provision under the Christian personal laws, unlike the Muslim personal laws and the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act (HAMA).
The high court bench of Justice Dr Kauser Edappagath was hearing a petition filed by a 65-year-old Christian man challenging a family court order that directed him to pay monthly maintenance of ₹20,000 to his wife, who is living separately, and ₹10,000 to his 27-year-old unmarried daughter. The petitioner argued that his daughter was a major at the time of filing the petition and was not entitled to maintenance. He also claimed that his wife was living separately ‘after deserting him’ and that she had sufficient means to maintain herself.
The high court partially allowed the revision petition, setting aside the family court order that had directed the petitioner to pay maintenance towards his unmarried daughter.
The court underlined that the scheme under 144(1)(c) of BNSS contemplated that a claim of maintenance by a daughter who has attained majority is admissible, only when, by reason of any physical or mental abnormality or injury, she is unable to maintain herself.
The high court also turned towards the religious personal laws to buttress its argument against granting maintenance for the unmarried daughter.
“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 said in its ruling delivered on October 29.
At the same time, the court did not accept the petitioner’s argument that his wife was living separately without sufficient reasons.
It was stated by the wife’s counsel that she was living in Mumbai to support their ailing son’s educational purposes and medical treatment. The court underlined that a mother’s parental obligation is ‘generally considered wider in scope than her marital obligation.’
The HC did not interfere with the family court’s order directing the petitioner to pay monthly maintenance of ₹20,000 to his wife and consolidated educational expenses of ₹30,000 granted to her.
