A father's legal obligation includes maintaining his unmarried daughter and covering her marriage expenses, which cannot be denied despite her age.

Judgment :

“A father cannot abdicate his responsibility of looking after his unmarried daughters. A father has a duty and an obligation to maintain his daughters and to take care of their expenses, including towards their education and marriage. This obligation is legal and absolute in character and arises from the very existence of the relationship between the parties. Kanyadaan is a solemn and pious obligation of a Hindu father, from which he cannot renege.”

1. The aforesaid observation made by the Delhi High Court in the matter of Poonam Sethi v. Sanjay Sethi (2022) 1 High Court Cases (Del) 95 : 2022 SCC Online Del 69 that aptly applies to the facts of the present case.

2. Invoking jurisdiction of this Court under Section 19 of Family Courts Act, the appellant/defendant has preferred this appeal calling in question the legality, validity and correctness of impugned judgment and decree dated 02/09/2024 passed in Civil Suit No. 56A/2022 whereby the Family Court, Surajpur (C.G.) has allowed the application preferred by the respondent/plaintiff under Section 20 read with Section 3 (b) of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 (hereinafter, the Act of 1956) and granted Rs. 2,500/- per month as maintenance and Rs. 5,00,000/- towards her marriage expenses.

3. Respondent/plaintiff is the daughter of appellant/ defendant and she filed an application under Section 20 read with Section 3 (b) of the Act of 1956 stating inter alia her father i.e. respondent/defendant has entered into second marriage with a woman namely Sabri alias Souri and he has two children out of that wedlock and since the respondent/plaintiff is aged about 25 years and is not able to maintain herself and the appellant/defendant, being a Government Teacher, earns Rs. 44,642/- per month as per Ex. P/4, the respondent/plaintiff is entitled for maintenance as well as for marriage expenses to the extent of Rs. 15,00,000/-, which was opposed by the respondent/defendant.

4. Learned Family Court, after a full-fledged inquiry, held that since the respondent/plaintiff is the daughter of appellant/defendant and is unable to maintain herself, therefore, she is entitled to get maintenance amount of Rs. 2,500/- per month from the appellant/defendant till her marriage and is also entitled to get Rs. 5,00,000/- towards marriage expenses, feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied by which, instant appeal has been preferred by the appellant/defendant.

5. Mr. Anurag Singh, learned counsel for the appellant/defendant, would submit that the Family Court is absolutely unjustified in granting maintenance as well as marriage expenses to the respondent/plaintiff as both the parties did not file affidavit in terms of the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the matter of Rajnish v. Neha, AIR 2021 SC 569 therefore, the impugned judgment and decree passed by the Family Court is liable to be set aside.

6. Mr. Utkarsh Patel, learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff, would support the impugned judgment and decree passed by learned Family Court and submit that the instant appeal is liable to be dismissed.

7. Mr. Sharad Mishra, learned counsel appearing as Amicus Curiae, would submit that the Family Court is absolutely justified in granting maintenance as well as marriage expenses in favour of the respondent/plaintiff and he has brought to our notice the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the matter of Abhilasha v. Parkash, (2021) 13 SCC 99

8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties as well as the Amicus Curiae, considered their submissions made herein-above and went through the records with utmost circumspection.

9. The relationship between the appellant/defendant and