In a landmark judgment, the Karnataka High Court reiterated a father’s obligation to support his children’s education and maintenance, even if they reside with their mother following a divorce. In RPFC No. 313 of 2023, the court dismissed a father’s appeal to avoid paying maintenance to his two daughters, affirming that the duty to provide “excellent education” remains irrespective of marital separation.
The case, presided over by Justice Ashok S. Kinagi, involves an appeal challenging a Family Court decision requiring the father to pay monthly maintenance and educational costs for his daughters. Despite his divorce from the daughters’ mother in 2012, the court emphasized his ongoing responsibility toward their welfare.
Case Background
The father sought relief from a March 2023 Family Court order from Tumakuru, which granted maintenance under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) to his daughters, aged 22 and underage, who reside with their mother. The daughters had filed the petition asserting that, despite financial capability, he had neglected their needs, especially their educational expenses.
According to the daughters and their counsel, Advocate Ramesh Naik L., the father’s neglect left them financially struggling, compelling them to seek court intervention. The Family Court had previously ordered him to pay each daughter Rs. 6,000 monthly and cover educational costs, which he contested on grounds of financial incapacity.
Legal Issues and Arguments
The case raised two key legal questions:
1. Parental Obligation under Section 125 of Cr.P.C.: The court examined whether a father must provide maintenance and education for his daughters, including an adult daughter who is financially dependent due to her educational needs.
2. Right to Education within Maintenance: The court deliberated on whether educational expenses for dependent adult daughters fall within the father’s financial obligations.
The father argued that he could not meet these financial demands due to alleged financial constraints and that the court had denied him the chance to present a full defense. However, his daughters contended he was financially stable, operating a transport business and owning agricultural land, which provided a steady income.
Court’s Decision and Key Observations
Justice Kinagi upheld the Family Court’s decision, firmly stating, “The petitioner, being a father, is legally bound to maintain the daughters and provide an excellent education to his daughters.” He rejected the father’s claims of financial incapacity, noting his income sources were sufficient to support the daughters’ needs.
The judge emphasized that a parent’s duty to support children’s educational needs is not nullified by divorce. Since the daughters, one of whom is a college student, were financially dependent and had no means of self-support, their father’s duty remained intact. The court acknowledged the daughters’ right to an “excellent education” as part of their maintenance rights, adding that his obligations extended to ensure they could pursue their education uninterrupted.
Detailed Ruling
The court observed:
“It is not in dispute that the respondents are the daughters of the petitioner, and further, it is not in dispute that they are residing along with their mother… The petitioner, being a father, is legally bound to maintain the daughters and provide an excellent education to his daughters.”
Rejecting the argument that living with their mother diminished the father’s duty, Justice Kinagi underscored that financial responsibility toward children is independent of custodial arrangements. The court affirmed the Family Court’s award of Rs. 6,000 per month for each daughter, plus educational expenses, declaring the amount reasonable given the father’s business income and assets.
