Maintenance granted to unmarried daughter

The Bombay High Court recently quashed a family court order and ruled that a major (adult) unmarried daughter is entitled to maintenance from her father.

A single Bench of Justice Bharati Dangre was hearing a plea made by a woman claiming maintenance for her major daughter under Section 125 (order for maintenance of wives, children and parents) of the Code Of Criminal Procedure.

The other issue, pointed out in the petition, related to whether the mother is competent to file proceedings, claiming maintenance on behalf of her major daughter. In this case, three children were born from a marriage that took place in 1988, all adults now. The woman said she was living with her minor children from 1997, after her husband deserted her and began living an adulterous life.

Financially dependent

In 2003, the woman filed a plea in the family court seeking maintenance for her minor children and consent terms were drawn where the husband was liable to pay ₹1,000 per month for each child.

The woman moved another application seeking an enhancement in maintenance in 2009 and the husband was directed to pay ₹5,000 towards the second son till he turned a major and ₹3,000 for the daughter till she turned a major. When the daughter turned 18 in August 2015, the wife moved the court again saying that the daughter was financially dependent on her as she was pursuing her higher education and had day-to-day expenses.

The woman moved the Family Court in Bandra seeking maintenance stating both her sons were not contributing and she needed money to educate her daughter. She claimed ₹15,000 per month from her husband.

Father protests

He opposed it saying his wife was actually asking for maintenance for their daughter and he was not bound by law to provide maintenance for his adult children. The family court tried to settle the matter through mediation but it could not be settled.

On February 13, 2018, it passed an order saying the wife is not entitled for maintenance for herself as she is working as a school teacher and drawing a salary of ₹48,000 per month.

However, Justice Dangre ruled, “The court does not find any fault in the application by the mother claiming only an amount she requires for meeting the educational expenses of the daughter. The family court order has been set aside.”