Kerela Court sets aside maintenance to Adult Daughter (27-year-old daughter), says support is not automatic, relief granted to 65-year-old father.
KOCHI: In a ruling that will resonate with thousands of fathers across India, the Kerala High Court has clarified that a father’s obligation to provide maintenance does not continue indefinitely simply because a daughter remains unmarried.
The Court held that a major daughter must demonstrate she is genuinely unable to support herself due to “physical or mental incapacity” to claim financial support under Section 125 CrPC / Section 144 BNSS. A 27-year-old daughter who is a practicing lawyer, the Court observed, cannot seek maintenance while being financially capable of earning and maintaining her own livelihood.
The judgment came as relief to a 65-year-old father, who had approached the High Court after being directed to continue paying monthly maintenance to both his wife and adult daughter by the Family Court, Ernakulam.
While the High Court acknowledged the wife’s right to be supported, especially since her income was irregular and insufficient to live with dignity, it firmly drew a line on extending the same entitlement to the daughter, who had “the education, professional capacity, and means to stand independently.”
This ruling reiterates a vital legal principle: Maintenance is a measure of protection, not a perpetual financial burden and adult children who are capable of earning must not rely on maintenance as a fallback.
Facts of the Case
The case involves a 65-year-old father, Varghese Kuruvila, and his wife and adult daughter, both of whom had approached the Family Court, Ernakulam seeking monthly maintenance. The wife claimed ₹30,000 per month, and the 27-year-old daughter sought ₹15,000 per month, alleging that the father had neglected to provide for them. The Family Court, after evaluating the evidence, directed the father to pay ₹20,000/month to the wife and ₹10,000/month to the daughter, in addition to ₹30,000 towards the daughter’s earlier educational expenses.
Challenging this order, the father approached the Kerala High Court, arguing:
- The daughter was already a major at the time of filing, and therefore not legally entitled to maintenance.
- The wife had voluntarily separated and was living away from the matrimonial home without sufficient cause, thus disentitling her from maintenance under Section 125(4) CrPC / Section 144(4) BNSS.
- The wife was employed and capable of earning and therefore should not require maintenance from him.
Before the High Court, it was undisputed that the daughter was 27 years old and a practicing lawyer. Importantly, there was no claim or evidence suggesting that she suffered from any physical or mental disability which could prevent her from supporting herself.
The Court emphasized that the law allows maintenance to a major unmarried daughter only in one limited situation: When she is unable to maintain herself due to physical or mental abnormality or injury. Since the daughter was professionally qualified and employed, the Court found no justification for continuing maintenance to her and set aside the award.
- On the Wife’s Conduct: The father argued that the wife had deserted him and chosen to live in Mumbai. However, evidence showed that she was living there to care for their ailing younger son, who required medical treatment and education support. The Court held that this constituted a valid and reasonable cause for living separately, not desertion.
- On the Wife’s Financial Condition: While the wife had occasional part-time work, there was no proof of stable or sufficient income. The Court reaffirmed that: A wife’s ability to earn something does not bar her from claiming maintenance, if her income does not allow her to live with dignity comparable to her marital life.
Accordingly, the Court upheld:
- ₹20,000/month maintenance to the wife, and
- ₹30,000 (one-time) educational expenses already granted.
Meanwhile, the maintenance to the daughter was reversed, recognizing the principle that adult children capable of earning cannot shift their financial responsibility entirely to ageing parents.
Court’s Findings
Justice Kauser Edappagath of the Kerala High Court conducted a careful examination of the statutory scheme under Section 125 CrPC / Section 144 BNSS, and the personal law applicable to the parties. The Court emphasized that maintenance is not an automatic entitlement, especially in the case of adult children. And thus, the finding of the Family Court granting maintenance to the daughter was set aside.
On Maintenance to the Major Daughter: The Court held that a major unmarried daughter could claim maintenance only in one specific situation:
“An unmarried daughter, even though she has attained majority, is entitled to maintenance only where she is, by reason of any physical or mental abnormality or injury, unable to maintain herself.”
Since the daughter in this case was a 27-year-old practicing lawyer, the Court noted that:
“There is no case that the respondent No.2 is unable to maintain herself on account of any physical or mental abnormality.”
On the Wife’s Right to Maintenance: The husband argued that the wife was not entitled to maintenance because she was living separately and earning. The Court rejected this, holding:
“The right of the wife to claim maintenance from the husband who has sufficient means is not absolute. It is subject to Section 125(4) of Cr.P.C (Section 144(4) of BNSS). The wife is disentitled only when she refuses to live with the husband without sufficient reason.”
On the evidence, the Court found that:
“The respondent No.1 is residing with her ailing younger son for the purpose of his education and medical treatment. This constitutes a sufficient reason.”
Therefore, the wife’s maintenance of ₹20,000 per month was affirmed.
On the Wife’s Income: The Court acknowledged the wife had occasional part-time work, but clarified:
“Temporary employment or occasional income will not disentitle the wife from claiming maintenance, if such income is insufficient to maintain herself.”
The Court reiterated the Supreme Court principle that: A wife is entitled to be maintained in a manner like her status in the matrimonial home.
Final Judicial Conclusion
- Maintenance to Wife: UPHELD
- Maintenance to Major Daughter: SET ASIDE
- Revision Petition: ALLOWED IN PART
The court reiterated: “The finding of the Family Court that the respondent No.2 is entitled to maintenance cannot be sustained.”
Explanatory table including sections/case laws cited in the judgement
| Law / Case | Provision / Principle | What the Law Requires | How the High Court Applied It |
| Section 125 CrPC / Section 144 BNSS (Maintenance) | Maintenance may be granted to wife, minor children, and major children only if they cannot maintain themselves due to physical or mental abnormality. | A major daughter can receive maintenance only if she is unable to earn due to disability/mental or physical incapacity. | The daughter was 27 years old and a practising lawyer, Capable of maintaining herself. Thus, No maintenance entitlement. |
| Family Law Principle (Christian Personal Law) | No statutory provision requiring a Christian father to maintain an adult, able-bodied daughter. | Unlike Hindu Law (HAMA Section 20), Christian personal law does not mandate support to an adult unmarried daughter unless incapable. | The Court held the daughter cannot claim maintenance under Christian personal law in absence of incapacity. |
| Section 125(4) CrPC / Section 144(4) BNSS (Wife Living Separately) | A wife is not entitled to maintenance if she refuses to live with the husband without sufficient reason. | If the wife is living separately due to valid circumstances, her claim stands. | Wife was living in Mumbai to care for their ailing son. This is a valid and sufficient reason. Thus, Maintenance upheld. |
| Wife’s Employment & Maintenance Law | A wife having some income does not automatically disqualify her from maintenance. | The test is whether she can maintain the same standard of living she enjoyed in the matrimonial home. | Wife’s part-time income was not stable or sufficient. Thus, Court confirmed ₹20,000/month as reasonable support. |
| Father’s Financial Capacity (Evidence on Record) | Maintenance depends on husband’s ability to pay, lifestyle, and assets. | Husband admitted ownership of two flats and business income. | Court found he had adequate means. Thus, Maintenance to wife affirmed. |
Case details
| Case Title | Varghese Kuruvila @ Sunny Kuruvila v. Annie Varghese & Anr. |
| Court | High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam Bench |
| Case Number | R.P.(F.C.) No. 157 of 2021 |
| Date of Judgment | 29 October 2025 |
| Presiding Judge | Hon’ble Dr. Justice Kauser Edappagath |
| Type of Petition | Revision Petition against maintenance order of Family Court |
| Original Case Challenged | M.C. No. 306 of 2017, Family Court, Ernakulam |
| Parties | Petitioner: Husband / Father (65-year-old) Respondents: Wife (50) and Daughter (27) |
| Personal Law Applicable | Christian Personal Law |
| Claim Before Family Court | Wife claimed ₹30,000/month & daughter claimed ₹15,000/month as maintenance |
| Family Court Order | Wife granted ₹20,000/month; Daughter granted ₹10,000/month; ₹30,000 awarded as educational expense |
| Grounds of Revision | Daughter is a major & capable of earning; Wife living separately without cause; Wife earning independently |
| Key Legal Issue | Whether a major daughter who is capable of earning can claim maintenance from her father |
| High Court’s Decision | Maintenance to wife upheld; Maintenance to major daughter set aside |
| Reasoning | Daughter is a practising lawyer & does not suffer from any physical/mental incapacity; Wife has valid reason to live separately & lacks sufficient income |
| Final Outcome | Revision Petition Allowed in Part; Only wife entitled to maintenance; daughter’s claim dismissed |
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the Indian courts and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of “ShoneeKapoor.com” or its affiliates. This article is intended for informational and educational purposes only. The content provided is not legal advice, and viewers should not act upon this information without seeking professional counsel. Viewer discretion is advised.