Safiya Malik

The High Court of Kerala, Single Bench of Justice Dr. Kauser Edappagath clarified that the scope of Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, corresponding to Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, does not permit a claim for maintenance by a major daughter unless she is unable to sustain herself owing to physical or mental abnormality or injury. The Court, while partly allowing a husband’s revision petition, held that an unmarried Christian daughter who has attained majority cannot seek maintenance from her father under the provision, noting the absence of a corresponding right in Christian personal law unlike under the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act or Muslim personal law. However, the Court upheld the maintenance awarded to the wife, finding her claim justified.

The matter arises from a revision petition filed by the husband challenging the order dated 09.03.2021 issued by the Family Court, Ernakulam in a maintenance case initiated by his wife and their daughter. The parties follow the Christian faith. The wife and daughter had approached the Family Court seeking monthly maintenance of ₹30,000 and ₹15,000 respectively. After evaluating the pleadings and evidence, the Family Court awarded ₹20,000 per month to the wife and ₹10,000 per month to the daughter. Additionally, a consolidated sum of ₹30,000 was granted to the wife towards her daughter’s educational expenses incurred between January 2017 and April 2017.

Also Read: Supreme Court Directs Nationwide Removal Of Stray Dogs From Schools, Hospitals, Bus Depots And Railway Stations

The husband contested the order primarily on three grounds. First, he asserted that the daughter had already attained majority at the time of filing the petition and therefore had no entitlement to maintenance. Second, he claimed that the wife had deserted him and had been residing separately in Mumbai without sufficient justification, disentitling her to maintenance. Third, he contended that the wife was employed and financially capable of maintaining herself.

The evidence before the Family Court included the daughter’s professional status and the wife’s assertions about residing separately due to the educational and medical needs of her younger son. The husband’s financial records were examined, including his proprietorship of AGL International Recruiting Agency and ownership of two residential flats valued at ₹90,00,000. His bank account statements showed monthly withdrawals averaging ₹60,000.

The statutory provisions relied upon in arguments included Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Section 144 of the BNSS), particularly its stipulations regarding maintenance for wives, minor children, and unmarried daughters unable to maintain themselves due to physical or mental disabilities.

The Court recorded that “Section 125 of Cr.P.C. (Section 144 of BNSS) limits the claim of maintenance of the child until he or she attains majority.” It further stated that “an unmarried daughter, even though she has attained majority, is entitled to maintenance, where she is, by reason of any physical or mental abnormality or injury, unable to maintain herself.” The Court observed that in this case, there was no allegation that the daughter was unable to maintain herself due to any such condition and that “it has come out in evidence that she is a practising lawyer.”

Addressing the applicability of judicial precedents involving Hindu parties, the Court stated that the decisions in Jagdish Jugtawat and Abhilasha were based on “Section 20(3) of the HAMA, which enables an unmarried major Hindu daughter to claim maintenance from her father.” It recorded that “there is no corresponding personal law applicable to Christians that enables a Christian unmarried daughter to claim maintenance from her father.” Referring to earlier precedent, the Court stated that “the decision of the Full Bench… only declares that a Christian father is under an obligation to maintain his minor child.” Accordingly, the Court observed that the Family Court’s finding that the major daughter was entitled to maintenance “cannot, thus, be sustained.”

On the issue of the wife living separately, the Court recorded that “it has come out in evidence that there is sufficient reason for respondent No.1 to reside in Mumbai.” It noted her testimony that “her ailing younger son is studying in Mumbai and she is staying there for the educational purposes and medical treatment of her ailing son.” The Court stated that “a mother’s parental obligation is generally considered wider in scope than her marital obligation.” It observed that her decision to stay away “cannot be said that she is living separately without sufficient reason.”

Also Read: Kerala High Court Directs Authorities To Prevent Physiotherapists, Occupational Therapists Without Recognised Medical Qualification From Using “Dr.” Prefix

Regarding her employment status, the Court noted her admission that she was doing “a part-time job on and off,” and that there was no proof of permanent income. It observed that temporary earnings would not bar maintenance if insufficient to meet her needs. The Court recorded the husband’s admissions regarding his financial capacity, referencing his business ownership, property holdings and bank withdrawals. The Court stated that the maintenance awarded to the wife “appears to be very reasonable.” It further observed that a wife’s claim may include “expenses incurred by her towards the education of the child who is dependent on her,” irrespective of the child’s age.

The Court directed that “the impugned order, to the extent it granted monthly maintenance to respondent No.2, is hereby set aside.” It held that the daughter’s entitlement under the Family Court’s order could not stand in law. The Court affirmed that it found “no reason to interfere with the monthly maintenance of Rs. 20,000/- and consolidated educational expenditure of Rs. 30,000/- granted to the respondent No.1.”

 “The revision petition stands allowed in part.”

Advocates Representing The Parties

For the Petitioners: Sri. K.M. Madhu, Smt. Vishnuja Ajayan
For the Respondents: Sri. S. Sreekumar (Sr.), Sri. P. Martin Jose, Sri. P. Prijith, Sri. Thomas P. Kuruvilla, Sri. R. Githesh, Smt. Hani P. Nair, Shri. Ajay Ben Jose, Sri. Manjunath Menon, Shri. Naveen A. Varkey, Smt. Anna Linda Eden, Shri. Harikrishnan S.

Case Title: Varghese Kuruvila @ Sunny Kuruvila v. Annie Varghese & Anr.
Neutral Citation: 2025: KER:81376
Case Number: RPFC No. 157 of 2021
Bench: Justice Dr. Kauser Edappagath