Whether an unmarried major daughter who is pursuing higher education and is not independently earning can invoke Section 20 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 for monetary relief towards educational expenses? The Karnataka High Court (Bengaluru Bench) has answered in affirmation and held that attainment of majority does not, by itself, disentitle such a daughter from seeking relief, because Section 20 has a wide ambit and permits monetary relief beyond narrow maintenance claims, including educational support, depending on the facts and the respondent parent’s financial capacity.
The Court further held that the obligation of parents, especially the father in the facts of this case, to provide education does not get extinguished merely because the daughter has crossed 18 years of age. Where the daughter is continuing from undergraduate to postgraduate study and lacks means, the Magistrate is empowered to grant adequate, fair and reasonable monetary relief under Section 20 of the DV Act. Applying this reasoning, the High Court upheld the findings of both the trial court and the appellate court that the father was liable to pay Rs. 16 lakhs towards the daughter’s postgraduate educational expenses.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice H.P. Sandesh first noted certain undisputed facts: the respondent was the petitioner’s daughter; when she joined MBBS both parents were living together; later matrimonial differences arose; and she had successfully completed MBBS, secured a good NEET-PG rank, and gained admission to the postgraduate medical course. The Court also noted that the fee payment and transfer of Rs. 14 lakhs from the grandfather stood supported by record.
The trial court had already found that the daughter and her mother did not have any other source of income and that the father had sufficient financial capacity. It referred to his banking transactions showing significant credits and debits, and concluded that in today’s professional environment MBBS without M.D. had limited value, justifying support for postgraduate education as well. The appellate court also examined the father’s financial records and noted that his income-tax returns reflected acquisition of fixed assets worth Rs. 1.34 crores in 2021. It also considered multiple loans availed by him, including overdraft, housing, gold and car loans, with aggregate outstanding dues of Rs. 1.28 crores and still concluded that he had the capacity to bear the daughter’s educational expenses.
On the legal issue, the High Court considered the father’s argument that a major daughter falls outside the definition of “child” under Section 2(b) of the DV Act. However, the Court emphasized that the daughter, being a woman in a domestic relationship and alleging domestic violence in the broader statutory sense, could still seek monetary relief as an “aggrieved person,” and that attainment of majority by itself did not defeat the claim.
The Court placed substantial reliance on the Supreme Court’s decision in Neelima Choure v. Vijay Choure [Criminal Appeal No.10/25], where it was observed that a daughter has an indefeasible, legally enforceable, lawful and legitimate right to secure educational expenses from her parents, and that parents can be compelled to provide funds for education within their financial capacity. The High Court treated this as directly supporting the daughter’s claim for postgraduate educational expenses. The Court also reiterated that monetary relief under Section 20 of the DV Act is not narrowly confined to routine maintenance, and that the words “but is not limited to” and “in addition to” indicate a broad power to grant relief for economic deprivation, including educational expenses.
The High Court expressly observed that a father’s role does not end when the child attains majority, especially where the daughter is not earning and is in continuing education. It rejected the submission that the daughter should simply take a bank loan, and held that the father’s obligation extended to supporting her post-graduation, particularly when he had the means and had earlier participated in her medical education.
Briefly, the case arose from a criminal revision petition filed by a father challenging concurrent orders of the JMFC and the appellate court directing him to pay Rs.16 lakhs towards his unmarried major daughter’s first-year post-graduation medical expenses. The daughter had sought this amount under Section 20(d) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, for pursuing M.D. Dermatology at Fr. Muller’s Institute of Medical Education and Research, Mangalore.
The daughter’s case was that she had cleared NEET, secured All India Rank 11,722, and obtained admission through KEA counselling for a postgraduate medical seat. She stated that the annual KEA fee paid by her was Rs.13,87,994, and in addition she was required to pay about Rs. 1.50 lakhs towards tuition and miscellaneous educational expenses, taking the first-year cost to about Rs. 16 lakhs. She further claimed that she had no independent means to bear the amount, and due to urgency, had borrowed money from her grandfather, who transferred Rs. 14 lakhs to her account to enable payment of the fees. She therefore asked the court to direct her father to reimburse and support her educational expenses.
The father resisted the application by alleging that the daughter had filed it only to harass him and extract money. He disputed the rank and admission details at first, argued that she was receiving a stipend of Rs.60,000 per month during postgraduate study, and contended that since she was already a major and had completed MBBS with his support, he could not be compelled under the DV Act to fund her post-graduation. He also raised a statutory objection that Section 20(d) of the DV Act speaks of maintenance for the aggrieved person and her children, and that a “child” under the Act means a person below 18 years. On that basis, he argued that a major daughter could not maintain such a claim under the DV Act.
