Kochi: The Kerala High Court has clarified that an unmarried Christian daughter who has attained majority cannot claim maintenance from her father under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) or its corresponding provision Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), unless she is unable to maintain herself due to physical or mental abnormality or injury.

Justice Kauser Edappagath observed that, unlike the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act (HAMA) or Muslim personal law, there is no corresponding provision under Christian personal law that entitles a father to maintain his unmarried major daughter.

The court referred to the Full Bench decision in Mathew Varghese v. Rosamma Varghese [2003 (3) KLT 6 (FB)], which held that a Christian father’s obligation to maintain extends only to his minor child.

“An unmarried Christian daughter who has attained majority is not entitled to claim maintenance from her father in a proceeding under Section 125 of CrPC (Section 144 of BNSS), unless she is unable to maintain herself by reason of any physical or mental abnormality or injury,” the court said.

The court was hearing a revision petition filed by a Christian man challenging a Family Court order that directed him to pay monthly maintenance of ₹20,000 to his wife and ₹10,000 to his major daughter, besides ₹30,000 towards educational expenses incurred earlier by his wife.

The petitioner argued that his daughter was not entitled to maintenance as she was a major on the date of the petition. He also contended that his wife had deserted him and was living separately in Mumbai despite having sufficient means to maintain herself.

Finding merit in the first contention, the High Court set aside the maintenance awarded to the daughter, holding that she was not legally entitled to claim it. On the issue of desertion, however, the court found that the wife was staying in Mumbai to take care of her ailing younger son, who was pursuing his studies there. This, the judge said, was a sufficient reason for living separately, and therefore she was not disentitled to maintenance.

“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,” the order read.

The court further clarified that a wife’s right to maintenance cannot be denied merely because she is employed or earning. “The phrase ‘unable to maintain herself’ in Section 125 CrPC (Section 144 BNSS) does not mean that the wife must be in a state of impecuniousness,” the judge added.

After reviewing the petitioner’s income records, the High Court found that he had sufficient means to pay the ordered amount. The court therefore upheld the Family Court’s decision granting monthly maintenance to the wife and ₹30,000 towards educational expenses, but set aside the maintenance granted to the major daughter.
(With LiveLaw inputs.)