The Karnataka High Court had said a father is not bound to pay monthly maintenance amount to his daughter, who is gainfully employed.

A division bench of Justice S N Satyanarayana and Justice P G M Patil, partly allowed the appeal filled by one Sadashivananda. The bench said "The Court below was justified in awarding certain sum at the initial stage but not after the plaintiff secured a respectable job in a good company earning more than Rs.20,000 to Rs.25,000 per month, for herself. She cannot be pampered with additional sum of Rs.10,000. There is already the responsibility on the shoulders of the father to provide maintenance to the other unmarried daughter, who has admittedly discontinued the studies and two other sons who have not yet attained majority and he has to maintain them until they are able to stand on their legs."

The bench also reduced the amount of marriage expenses fixed by the family court from Rs 15 lakh to Rs 5 lakh. It said "Marriage expenses is required to be paid as and when her ( daughters) marriage is fixed and that the said expenses shall be to the maximum extent of Rs 5 lakhs only."

The father had approached the court challenging the family court order passed on November 9, 2016. His second daughter Padmini had approached the court by filing a suit under Section 20 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, along with invoking the provisions of Order VII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

The daughter sought from the court that her father be directed to pay maintenance and expenses to the her that he should go on paying the maintenance till the marriage, to meet the marriage expenses in the event the marriage is fixed and make arrangement for smooth education career of the plaintiff.

The father argued in High court that The suit was disposed of in haste, the material evidence which was available on record is not properly appreciated and the status of the daughter wherein she has completed Bachelor of Engineering and M.Tech. and also working as outsource agent and getting handsome income, is not looked into and without considering this aspect, the trial Court has not only awarded monthly maintenance of Rs.10,000 also awarded Rs.15,00,000 towards her marriage expenses which is erroneous and totally impermissible in law without there being any evidence to support the same.

The bench after going through the documents and proceedings filed by the parties earlier in the family court noted "The difference between the appellant and his wife is a long drawn one where under there are different litigations pending between them. Out of that one is for maintenance filed by the wife for herself and also on behalf of her five children; the second one is for restitution of conjugal rights and the third one is the suit for partition seeking 6/7th share in the suit properties which are said to the properties of appellant herein."

"In the instant case, plaintiff in the court below was already an Engineering graduate as on the date of filing of the suit and besides that, she is already employed. Even,if it is taken at Rs.20,000 to Rs.25,000 per month, with that kind of income already available to her, how the Court could saddle the responsibility of paying maintenance to her does not stand to reason. It also further does not stand to reason the amount of Rs.15,00,000 awarded by the court below for the marriage expenses of the plaintiff, without there being any pleadings to that effect. There is nothing in evidence to demonstrate that the expenses which is required for the marriage of plaintiff is to the tune of Rs.15,00,000.The Court below unilaterally on its own presumes/assumes that the requirement of the amount for marriage of the plaintiff, which amount does not stand to reason in any manner."

Click here to download the Judgment