Children Win Court Battle For Educational Assistance From Father

In an interesting judgment, the Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that under Hindu law, a father can be legally obliged to finance the higher education of adult children. The case came about when a daughter and son appeared in court seeking maintenance to continue their studies, the daughter pursuing a PhD and the son a course in BTech.

The daughter, who was born on August 1 1998, and the son, who was born on March 17 2002, contended that financial desperation would adversely affect their studies. Their mother, concerned about the family's financial stability, also joined them in filing the petition before the court so that their father would continue with the maintenance. The case is a typical instance of the meeting point between statutory law and parents' moral obligation to their children, even after they attain majority.

Previous Proceedings

The family first approached the Judicial Magistrate First Class, who awarded maintenance of Rs 2,000 a month to the mother, son, and daughter. Being unsatisfied with the amount, they moved a revision case before the Additional Sessions Judge-II. In 2015, the judge raised the maintenance to Rs 3,000 every month. The matter was then referred to Lok Adalat, where again on July 22, 2017, the maintenance was raised to Rs 4,000 every month.

On July 2, 2018, the mother and children filed another petition under Section 127 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) for a further increase in maintenance allowances. The Additional Principal Judge, of the Family Court, awarded the mother an increase to Rs 8,000 per month but dismissed the demands of the children on the premise that both of them had reached their age of legal maturity and did not qualify for maintenance under CrPC provisions.

Grievancing aggrieved by the Family Court order, the mother and her children approached the Himachal Pradesh High Court, arguing that it was the legal and moral duty of their father to provide them with financial support to carry on their studies.

Legal Provisions Contemplated

The High Court heard the case both in the light of the CrPC as well as the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act (HAMA).

Maintenance is legally mandated under Section 125 of the CrPC for wives who are unable to maintain themselves, minor children (legitimate or illegitimate) and majority-aged children who are unable to maintain themselves due to physical or mental incapacity. Since the son and daughter were not physically or mentally incapacitated, their claim of maintenance specifically under Section 125 CrPC after majoring could not be effective.

But the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 (HAMA), provides protection to unmarried daughters beyond the age of maturity. According to Section 20(3) of the act, an unmarried daughter who is not able to maintain herself out of her own earnings or property shall be maintained by her father. This legal provision specially recognises the continuing obligation of maintenance by money of unmarried daughters in pursuit of education, or who are unable to maintain themselves independently.

Court's Observations

The Himachal Pradesh High Court granted a part of the appeal and made the following observations:

The court ruled that the unmarried daughter was entitled to maintenance as per Section 20(3) of HAMA. She was financially dependent due to her PhD course, and her father was directed to provide assistance so that she could continue her studies without any obstacles.

Since the son is also of mature age, he was not entitled to claim maintenance under Section 125 CrPC. The court denied his maintenance application after the maturity age. This shows the law that adult sons, except those who are not in a position to maintain themselves, cannot claim maintenance under the CrPC in general.

The court held that no order could be issued to recover past payments voluntarily made by the father in terms of earlier maintenance orders. Forcing the father to return these funds would interfere with the education and future of the children, and the court was adamant it must be protected against.

Suggestions of the Ruling

The decision has significant implications for India's law of maintenance, particularly under Hindu personal law. It makes it clear that the legal obligation of a father to children does not always terminate as they reach the age of 18 years, especially in the case of unmarried daughters who are not able to support themselves. The ruling also makes it clear that adult sons, except in the case of incapacitation, do not have an automatic right under Section 125 CrPC, but voluntary maintenance can be made available.

In addition, the eligibility for maintenance is gauged in terms of when the petition is presented, not when the final court order is passed. The notion holds good for children and parents who approach the courts for legal relief in obtaining help.

The ruling underscores how critically important it is to promptly process petitions for maintenance. Qualification for maintenance is determined in terms of when the petition is submitted, not when the court's final order is made. The concept is applicable to children and parents who need legal relief.

Broader Context

The verdict somewhat recognises the growing financial burden on young adults pursuing higher education in India. It is an invitation to remember parents' moral and legal commitments to pursue the educational dreams of their children, even after they reach the majority age, when they lack independent financial resources. The ruling also proclaims a message to parents concerning their ongoing duty under personal law, particularly where children insist on higher-level academic qualifications.

Socially, the ruling ought to encourage unmarried daughters to assert their rights under HAMA and also encourage families to look ahead to plans for funding additional education. It also provides certainty to courts hearing such cases so that they are more consistent in their approach to balancing parental responsibility and adult children's educational needs.