Major unmarried Christian daughter not entitled to claim maintenance from father: Kerala High Court

The court made this observation while dealing with a revision plea filed by a Christian man who had challenged the Family Court’s order granting maintenance of Rs 20,000 and Rs 10,000 respectively to his wife and daughter. The Family Court further granted Rs 30,000 to his wife towards the educational expenditure of his daughter incurred by her.

The counsel for the husband had challenged the Family Court’s order on the ground that his daughter was a major thus she was not entitled to maintenance. He also contended that his wife was living separately without sufficient reason after deserting him. He argued that his wife is employed and has sufficient means to maintain herself.

The court noted that under Section 125(1)(c) of Cr.P.C. (Section 144(1)(c) of BNSS), a maintenance claim by a major daughter is admissible only when, by reason of any physical or mental abnormality or injury, she is unable to maintain herself.

The court therefore set aside the Family Court’s order granting monthly maintenance to his daughter.

On the next argument that his wife had deserted him, the court observed that his wife had given evidence that she was staying with her ailing younger son studying in Mumbai.

The court noted that when a wife decides to reside away from her husband to provide better treatment and education for her ailing son, it cannot be said that she is living separately without sufficient reason to be disentitled to maintenance under Section 125(4) of Cr.PC (Section 144(4) of BNSS).

On the argument that his wife was employed and had sufficient means to maintain herself, the court observed that it is a settled law that even if the wife has the capability to earn or is earning something, it does not disentitle her from claiming maintenance from her husband.

“Considering the ability and financial capacity of the petitioner and the requirement of respondent No.1 (wife), the monthly maintenance of Rs. 20,000/- fixed by the Family Court to respondent No.1 appears to be very reasonable”, the court said.

The court thus concluded, “I see 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. For the reasons stated above, the impugned order, to the extent it granted monthly maintenance to respondent No.2, is hereby set aside. The revision petition stands allowed in part”.