Sanchayita Lahkar

The High Court of Chhattisgarh Division Bench of Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal and Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal held that a father is legally as well as morally duty bound to provide maintenance and marriage expenses to his daughter, even after she attains the age of majority. In dismissing the appeal filed by the father, the Court upheld the Family Court’s direction requiring him to pay monthly maintenance and contribute to the daughter’s marriage expenses. The dispute centered on the daughter’s plea that she was unable to support herself and required financial assistance from her father. The Bench affirmed that an unmarried daughter is entitled to such support under the governing personal law and that the father’s obligation continues until her marriage.

The matter arose from an appeal filed by the father challenging the judgment of the Family Court, which had allowed an application filed by his unmarried daughter under Section 20 read with Section 3(b) of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956. The daughter stated that she was 25 years old, unable to maintain herself, and required financial support for her living expenses and marriage. She asserted that her father, a government teacher earning ₹44,642 per month, had contracted a second marriage and had two children from that relationship. She sought maintenance and marriage expenses of ₹15,00,000. The father opposed the claim. Evidence relied upon included the salary document marked as Exhibit P/4.

Also Read: Appellate Court Can Grant Interim Relief Even After Suit Dismissal By Trial Court: Supreme Court Remits Status Quo Plea On Suit Property To District Court For Fresh Consideration

The Family Court conducted inquiry and held that the daughter was entitled to ₹2,500 per month as maintenance and ₹5,00,000 towards her marriage expenses. The father appealed the decision, arguing that no affidavit had been filed by the parties in terms of Rajnish v. Neha. The daughter supported the Family Court’s order. An amicus curiae also addressed the Court, referring to Supreme Court precedent in Abhilasha v. Parkash, which discussed statutory obligations under Section 20(3) of the Act of 1956.

The Court recorded that “the relationship between the appellant/defendant and respondent/plaintiff, being that of a father and daughter, is not in dispute.” It stated that it was also undisputed that the father “has performed second marriage and has two children out of that wedlock.” The Court noted the daughter’s case that “she is unable to maintain herself and also needs financial support from her father… to bear her marriage expenses.”

The Court recorded that the principles stated by the Delhi High Court were directly relevant to the present dispute, noting the observation that “A father cannot abdicate his responsibility of looking after his unmarried daughters. A father has a duty and an obligation to maintain his daughters and to take care of their expenses, including towards their education and marriage. This obligation is legal and absolute in character and arises from the very existence of the relationship between the parties. Kanyadaan is a solemn and pious obligation of a Hindu father, from which he cannot renege.”

The Bench stated that the respondent’s claim for maintenance and marriage expenses was rooted in the statutory definitions under the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, referring to Section 3(b), which provides that “‘Maintenance’ includes… in the case of an unmarried daughter, also the reasonable expenses of and incident to her marriage.” The Court recorded that this clause is inclusive in nature and encompasses the financial obligations connected to the marriage of an unmarried daughter.

Relying on Section 20(3) of the Act, the Court observed the statutory mandate that “The obligation of a person to maintain… a daughter who is unmarried extends in so far as the… unmarried daughter… is unable to maintain… herself out of… her own earnings or other property.” In this context, the Bench turned to the Supreme Court’s interpretation in Abhilasha v. Parkash, quoting that “The provision of Section 20 of the 1956 Act casts clear statutory obligation on a Hindu to maintain his unmarried daughter who is unable to maintain herself… Unmarried daughter is clearly entitled for maintenance from her father till she is married even though she has become major.”

Applying these principles to the facts, the Court recorded that although the daughter was 25 years old, she remained unmarried and unable to sustain herself, making her eligible for maintenance and marriage expenses under Sections 3(b)(ii) and 20(3). The Bench stated that the father, being a salaried government teacher, was under both moral and legal obligation to support her, adding that “He cannot deny to pay the marriage expenses on any ground whatsoever when he is getting a reasonably well salary by working as a Government Teacher as per Ex. P/4.”

Also Read: ‘Disabled employees are compelled to climb the stairs daily’: Chhattisgarh High Court Takes Suo Motu Action, Directs PWD Secretary To Explain Non-Functional Lift And Lack Of Facilities In Govt Building

The Court ultimately found no error in the Family Court’s conclusion that the daughter was entitled to monthly maintenance and a lump sum for marriage expenses, recording that the appeal was devoid of merit.

The Court directed that “the instant appeal, being devoid of merits, is hereby dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own cost(s)” and further that “the amount of maintenance will be paid by the appellant/defendant regularly and Rs. 5,00,000/- will be deposited within three months.”

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Appellant: Mr. Anurag Singh, Advocate
For the Respondent: Mr. Utkarsh Patel, Advocate
Amicus Curiae: Mr. Sharad Mishra, Advocate

Case Title: Raj Kumar Sonwani v. Kumari Purnima
Neutral Citation: 2025:CGHC:56721-DB
Case Number: FA (MAT) No. 168 of 2025
Bench: Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal, Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal