Father's Duty To Maintain Unmarried Daughter Under S.20 HAMA Is Absolute, Extends To Marriage Expenses Even After Majority: Chhattisgarh High Court - 2025-11-25

Father’s Duty to Maintain Unmarried Daughter is a ‘Solemn and Pious Obligation’, Cannot be Abdicated: Chhattisgarh High Court

Bilaspur, CG – The Chhattisgarh High Court, in a significant ruling, has reaffirmed that a Hindu father's responsibility to maintain his unmarried daughter is a "legal and absolute" obligation that extends to her marriage expenses, even after she has attained the age of majority. A division bench of Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal and Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal dismissed an appeal filed by a father challenging a Family Court's order to provide for his daughter.

The Court invoked the principle of Kanyadaan , describing it as a "solemn and pious obligation of a Hindu father, from which he cannot renege."

Case Background

The appeal, Raj Kumar Sonwani vs. Kumari Purnima , was filed by a father, Raj Kumar Sonwani, against a judgment by the Family Court, Surajpur. The Family Court had directed him to pay monthly maintenance of ₹2,500 to his 25-year-old daughter, Kumari Purnima, and a lump sum of ₹5,00,000 towards her marriage expenses.

The daughter had filed an application under the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 (HAMA), stating that she was unable to maintain herself. She pointed out that her father, a government teacher with a monthly salary of ₹44,642, had a legal duty to support her, especially since he had entered into a second marriage and had two other children.

Arguments Presented

The appellant-father, represented by Mr. Anurag Singh, primarily argued that the Family Court's order was unjustified because the mandatory financial affidavits, as laid down by the Supreme Court in Rajnish v. Neha , were not filed by the parties.

On the other hand, counsel for the respondent-daughter, Mr. Utkarsh Patel, supported the Family Court's decision. The Amicus Curiae, Mr. Sharad Mishra, bolstered the daughter's case by citing the Supreme Court's authoritative judgment in Abhilasha v. Parkash .

Legal Principles and Court's Reasoning

The High Court meticulously analyzed the provisions of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, to arrive at its decision.

1. Definition of Maintenance: The bench highlighted Section 3(b)(ii) of the Act, which explicitly includes "the reasonable expenses of and incident to her marriage" within the definition of 'maintenance' for an unmarried daughter.

2. Statutory Obligation under Section 20(3): The core of the judgment rested on Section 20(3) of the Act, which states:

> "The obligation of a person to maintain... a daughter who is unmarried extends in so far as the... unmarried daughter... is unable to maintain... herself out of her own earnings or other property."

3. Supreme Court Precedent: The Court heavily relied on the Supreme Court's interpretation of this provision in Abhilasha v. Parkash . Quoting the apex court, the bench reiterated that an unmarried daughter's right to claim maintenance from her father when she is unable to support herself is "absolute" and can be enforced even after she becomes a major, continuing until her marriage.

The judgment stated unequivocally:

> “The appellant/defendant, being the father of respondent/plaintiff, has a moral and legal responsibility and obligation to maintain his daughter, who is unmarried, even though she has attained the age of majority. He cannot deny to pay the marriage expenses on any ground whatsoever when he is getting a reasonably well salary...”

The Court found the father's procedural objection regarding affidavits insufficient to overturn the substantive and statutory right of the daughter.

Final Verdict and Implications

Finding no merit in the appeal, the High Court dismissed it and upheld the Family Court's judgment. The father was directed to pay the maintenance amount regularly and deposit the ₹5,00,000 for marriage expenses within three months.

This judgment serves as a powerful reminder of the entrenched legal and moral duties of a father under Hindu personal law, emphasizing that financial support for an unmarried daughter is not discretionary but a fundamental obligation that continues until her marriage.