S.125 Cr.P.C.: High Court Affirms Father's Unwavering Duty to Maintain Daughters, Dismisses Challenge to Maintenance Order - 2025-05-12

High Court Upholds Maintenance for Daughters, Emphasizes Father's Unwavering Responsibility

Tumakuru, Karnataka – A High Court has dismissed a revision petition filed by a father challenging a Family Court order that directed him to pay maintenance to his two daughters. The oral order underscored the legal and moral obligation of a father to support his children, irrespective of disputes with their mother.

The revision petition was filed under Section 19 of the Family Court Act, 1984, against a judgment dated March 7, 2023, by the I Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Tumakuru, in Crl.Misc.No.146/2022.

Background of the Dispute

The respondents, the petitioner's daughters, had sought maintenance from their father through an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) (referred to in the judgment alongside its proposed successor, Section 144 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023). The parents had divorced in 2012, and the daughters were residing with their mother. They contended that their father was neglecting their financial needs, making it difficult for them to manage their livelihood and education. One daughter is a minor, represented by her elder sister.

The Family Court, after considering the evidence presented by the elder daughter (PW.1) and ten documents (Exs.P1 to P10), had partially allowed their petition. It ordered the father to pay Rs. 6,000 per month to each daughter from the date of the petition until their marriage. Additionally , he was directed to pay Rs. 1,04,000 towards their educational expenses for the current academic year and Rs. 5,000 for litigation costs. The judgment noted that the father (respondent in the Family Court) did not file objections to the maintenance claim.

Arguments in the High Court

The petitioner-father challenged the Family Court's decision on several grounds: * He claimed he could not afford the maintenance amount awarded. * He argued that the Family Court had not provided him with sufficient opportunity to file a statement of objections and present his evidence. * He also referred to his divorce from the respondents' mother (M.C.No.328/2013) as a reason why he should not be liable for the "compensation as the respondents demand."

High Court's Observations and Decision

The High Court, after perusing the records and hearing the petitioner's counsel, found no merit in the revision petition. The Court highlighted several undisputed facts: * The respondents are indeed the petitioner's daughters. * They reside with their mother. * There was no evidence to show that the petitioner was already providing maintenance.

The Court observed that one daughter is a minor, and there was no claim that the elder, major daughter was an earning member. Emphasizing the father's responsibility, the judgment stated:

"The petitioner, being a father, is legally bound to maintain the daughters and provide an excellent education to his daughters. On the contrary, the petitioner has not offered any maintenance to the daughters, i.e., the respondents."

The Court also took note of the daughters' contentions regarding the father's income, which included earnings of approximately Rs. 1 lakh per month from a lorry transport business in a crusher and Rs. 8,000 per month from one acre of areca nut and coconut garden land.

Considering these factors, the High Court concluded that the Family Court's award was justified. The single-judge bench stated:

"Considering the petitioner’s income, the trial Court has rightly awarded Rs.6,000/- p.m. to each respondent from the date of petition till they get married and also education expenses. I do not find any error in the impugned judgment passed by the Family Court."

Final Order and Implications

The High Court proceeded to dismiss the revision petition, thereby upholding the Family Court's order in its entirety. The father remains liable to pay the specified maintenance, educational expenses, and litigation costs to his daughters.

This decision reinforces the established legal principle under Section 125 Cr.P.C. concerning the duty of a father to maintain his children, particularly unmarried daughters, ensuring their financial well-being and access to education. It also suggests that claims of insufficient opportunity at the trial court may not hold water if the party failed to utilize available procedures, such as filing objections.