S. 144 BNSS/S.125 CrPC| Unmarried Major Christian Daughter Not Entitled To Claim Maintenance From Father: Kerala High Court
The Kerala High Court recently clarified that the scheme of the provision under Section 125 Code of Criminal Procedure, corresponding Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita does not contemplate maintenance claim by a major daughter unless she is unable to maintain herself due to physical or mental abnormality or injury.
Dr. Justice Kauser Edappagath also noted that unlike in the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act [HAMA] and the Muslim personal law, there is no provision in personal law applicable to Christians for maintaining an unmarried daughter who has attained majority.
The Court observed:
“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 decision of the Full Bench of the Kerala High Court in Mathew Varghese v. Rosamma Varghese [2003 (3) KLT 6 (FB)] only declares that a Christian father is under an obligation to maintain his minor child. Therefore, an unmarried Christian daughter who has attained majority is not entitled to claim maintenance from her father in a proceeding under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. (Section 144 of BNSS), unless she is unable to maintain herself by reason of any physical or mental abnormality or injury.”
The Court was considering a revision filed by a Christian man who had challenged the Family Court's order granting monthly maintenance of Rs. 20,000/- and Rs. 10,000/- respectively to his wife (Respondent 1) and major daughter (Respondent 2). Additionally, an amount of Rs. 30,000/- was granted to the wife towards the educational expenditure of the daughter incurred by her earlier.
The husband challenged the order stating that respondent 2 was not entitled to maintenance since she was a major as on the date of the petition. He further urged that his wife had deserted him and is living separately in Mumbai, and that she has sufficient means to maintain herself.
Finding merit in the first contention, the Court set aside the maintenance ordered to respondent 2.
Going to the next argument that the wife had deserted him, the Court noted that the evidence points out that she was staying with her ailing younger son, who was studying in Mumbai. This, the Court felt, was sufficient reason to live separately and that she is entitled to maintenance.
It further observed:
“Indeed, the right of the wife to be maintained by the husband stems from the corresponding obligation to perform marital duty. But a mother has obligations to both her husband and child. A mother's parental obligation is generally considered wider in scope than her marital obligation. When a wife chooses 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).”
Addressing the third contention of the petitioner, the Court found that it is settled law that a wife would not be disentitled to maintenance merely because she is employed or earning an income.
““unable to maintain herself” in Section 125 of Cr.P.C (Section 144 of BNSS) does not mean that the wife must be in a state of impecuniousness,” remarked the Court.
After finding that the petitioner has sufficient income based on his average monthly withdrawal, the Court felt that the maintenance ordered by the Family Court was reasonable.
With respect to Rs. 30,000 ordered towards educational expenditure, the Court felt that the claim for maintenance by a wife who is unable to maintain herself can very well include the expenses incurred by her towards the education of a child, even if the child is a major.
Thus, the Court allowed the petition in part and set aside the maintenance awarded to the major daughter. It upheld that monthly maintenance of the wife and payment towards educational expenses.
Case No: RPFC No. 157 of 2021
Case Title: Varghese Kuruvila @ Sunny Kuruvilla v. Annie Varghese and Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 713
Counsel for the petitioner: K.M. Madhu, Vishnuja Ajayan
Counsel for the respondents: S. Sreekumar (Sr.), P. Martin Jose, P. Prijith, Thomas P. Kuruvilla, R.Githesh, Hani P. Nair, Ajay Ben Jose, Manjunath Menon, Naveen A. Varkey, Anna Linda Eden, Harikrishnan S.