Kochi: A Christian unmarried woman is not entitled to maintenance from her father under the faith’s personal laws, the Kerala High Court has ruled.
Unlike the Muslim personal laws and the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act (HAMA), there is no provision under the Christian personal laws for such payment, the Court held.
Justice Dr Kauser Edappagath was hearing a petition filed by a 65-year-old Christian man challenging a family court order, directing him to pay monthly maintenance of Rs 20,000 to his wife, who is living separately, and Rs 10,000 to his 27-year-old unmarried daughter.
It was argued by the petitioner that his daughter was a major at the time of filing the petition and was not entitled to maintenance. He also claimed that his wife was living separately ‘after deserting him’ and that she had sufficient means to maintain herself.
The revision petition was partially allowed by the High Court. It set aside the part of the family court order that had directed the petitioner to pay maintenance towards his unmarried daughter.
Justice Edappagath underlined that the scheme under 144(1)(c) of BNSS contemplated that a claim of maintenance by a daughter who has attained majority is admissible, only when, by reason of any physical or mental abnormality or injury, she is unable to maintain herself.
To strengthen its argument, the Court also turned towards the religious personal laws against granting maintenance for the unmarried daughter.
“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 finding of the family court that the respondent number 2 is entitled to maintenance cannot be thus sustained,” the Court said in its ruling.
justice Edappagath did not accept the petitioner’s argument that his wife was living separately without sufficient reasons though.
The wife’s counsel submitted that she was living in Mumbai to support their ailing son’s educational purposes and medical treatment. The court said that a mother’s parental obligation is ‘generally considered wider in scope than her marital obligation.’
The Court did not interfere with the family court’s order directing the petitioner to pay monthly maintenance of Rs 20,000 to his wife and consolidated educational expenses of Rs 30,000 granted to her.
