DV Act | Daughters Entitled To Maintenance Only Till They Attain Majority, Not Till Marriage: Karnataka High Court

The Karnataka High Court has clarified that under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, a father is to pay maintenance amount to his daughters only till they attain majority and maintenance cannot be ordered to be paid till their marriage.

Justice Rajendra Badamikar added that upon attaining majority if the daughters are not able to maintain themselves, they can seek maintenance under provisions of the Hindu Adoption Act.

“In the instant case, admittedly, the major daughters are not parties and they have not sought any maintenance independently. They have got remedy under the provisions of Hindu Adoption Act to seek the maintenance on attaining majority in case they are unable to maintain themselves. Hence, under the provisions of Domestic Violence Act, question of awarding maintenance till marriage of the daughters does not arise at all and the maintenance can be granted till the attainment of age of majority by the child.”

The couple had married in 1998 and have two daughters. The wife had filed an application under Section 12 of the Act, seeking injunction against the respondent-husband from committing any domestic violence, seeking relief for separate residence and also sought maintenance as well as compensation to the tune of Rs.10,00,000.

The trial court on considering the averments allowed the application in part directing the husband not to commit any domestic violence and further directed that the children of the petitioner & respondent are entitled for monthly maintenance of Rs.5,000, each till they are married. Further, he has also awarded compensation of Rs.5,00,000, by way of damages.

The husband challenged the order before the Session court which modified the order and directed him to pay Rs 4,000 to the daughters and reduced the damages/ compensation to Rs 1 lakh.

Counsel for the wife contended that the daughters were granted maintenance of Rs.5,000 each by the Magistrate which was reduced to Rs.4,000 and damages were reduced from Rs.5,00,000 to Rs.1,00,000 and there is no reason for reduction of the maintenance as well as damages. The respondent being the father did not make any provision for maintenance of the minor children and it is the duty of the father to maintain his children.

The husband opposed the plea arguing that both the petitioner and respondent were government teachers and had sufficient means. The petitioner (wife) was also equally responsible for the maintenance of children and the definition of a child was a person below the age of 18 years. Hence, maintenance cannot be awarded after they attain the age of majority under the provisions of this Act. The daughters were at liberty to file an independent petition under the provisions of the Hindu Adoption And Maintenance Act, 1956, claiming maintenance, since now, they have attained majority.

Findings:

On going through the record the bench noted that admittedly, children were born in 1999 & 2001 respectively and as of today they have attained majority.

Referring to Section 20(1)(d) of the Act which provides for awarding maintenance to the aggrieved person as well as the children. It said “The definition of the child is given in Section 2(d) of the act wherein a child is described as any person below the age of 18 years and it includes adopted, step or foster child. Hence, under the provisions of Section 20, maintenance can be awarded only to aggrieved person and children.”

Then it held that the maintenance to the children can be granted till they attain the age of majority under the provisions of the Domestic violence Act. The evidence discloses that the children required maintenance of Rs.5,000 to Rs.6,000, per month. However, it was held that it is not the sole responsibility of the respondent and it is the responsibility of the mother as well to maintain the children.

It added,

“Since both are teachers, the maintenance awarded by the learned Magistrate at Rs.5,000, per month appears to belittle high and the learned sessions judge has reduced it to Rs.4,000, which is proper. If Rs.4,000 is paid by respondent-husband, then balance can be contributed by the petitioner-wife/mother.”

As such, it was found that the order of the Sessions Judge did not call for any interference. However, both the Courts below had awarded the maintenance from the date of petition till the marriage of daughters which was found to be improper and the children are entitled to maintenance till the date of majority.

Considering the issue of reduction of compensation amount the bench said,

“In the instant case, the evidence clearly establishes that the petitioner-wife was subjected to domestic violence. This evidence is again corroborated by the report of the protection officer. Further non making any provision for the maintenance of the minor children also can be termed as domestic violence as it is not the responsibility of the mother alone to maintain the child. Hence, there is material evidence to prove the domestic violence is committed by the respondent-husband as against the petitioner.”

However, it expressed that there is no provision for computing the compensation and it is only 'guesswork'. Damages or compensation cannot be equated or counted in terms of money as it is a solace granted for the mental or physical injuries suffered by the aggrieved person, the Court added.

Accordingly, it held as below,

“Admittedly, both are teachers and both are responsible for moulding the future responsible citizens of the country. But in the instant case, their own children are the sufferers. The learned Magistrate has not given any reasons for awarding compensation/damages to the tune of Rs.5,00,000, but the Sessions judge has reduced it to Rs.1,00,000. It is only a discretion considering the employment of both the parties. In my considered opinion the damages awarded by the learned Sessions Judge to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/- appears to be reasonable and it does not call for any interference.”

The Court thus allowed the husband's petition in part and dismissed the petition filed by the wife.

Case Title: XYZ And ABC

Case No: CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.795 OF 2015 C/W CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.1031 OF 2015

Date of Order: 23-08-2023

Appearance: Advocate K S Harish for Petitioner

Advocate Abhishek Arunkumar Happali for Advocate Vaishali Hegde for respondent.

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment