Bengaluru: The Karnataka high court has ruled that a father is obligated to bear the educational expenses of his adult unmarried daughter, including postgraduate studies.The ruling came while dismissing a revision petition filed by her father, a Mangaluru businessman, challenging court orders requiring him to pay Rs 16 lakh towards his daughter’s college fees for pursuing an MD in dermatology.The court maintained that monetary relief under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act (DV Act) extended beyond maintenance and could include educational expenses. “The contention of the petitioner that when she (daughter) has attained majority, she can pursue her education by obtaining a bank loan, cannot be a ground to set aside the order of the trial court and the appellate court,” Justice Sandesh noted.The dispute arose in 2024 when the daughter approached the magistrate’s court seeking Rs 16 lakh towards admission and tuition fees for her PG medical course. She submitted that she obtained admission to Fr Muller Medical College, Mangaluru, for MD (dermatology) programme. The admission fee amounted to Rs 13.9 lakh, with an annual fee of Rs 1.5 lakh. She stated that Rs 14 lakh had been borrowed from her grandfather to meet the initial expenses.The magistrate’s court allowed her plea and directed the father in Feb to reimburse Rs 16 lakh. In April, the sessions court dismissed the father’s appeal, prompting him to approach the high court.Before the high court, the father argued that his daughter, born on August 17, 2000, had already attained majority when she filed the petition and was, therefore, not entitled to seek monetary relief under the DV Act. He also contended that he had fully funded her MBBS education and that she had voluntarily chosen to pursue PG instead of beginning medical practice.He further submitted that the daughter was receiving a monthly stipend of Rs 60,000 during her postgraduate course and, therefore, was capable of supporting herself.The father also argued that she could not be treated as an “aggrieved person” under the DV Act after attaining majority.The daughter, however, argued that becoming a major did not extinguish her father’s responsibility to support her education.Justice Sandesh held that parental obligations do not automatically end upon a child attaining majority. The court observed: “It is the obligation of the parents to provide basic amenities, health and education, which cannot be said to be extinguished, on the child attaining majority.”The court pointed out that the definition of “economic abuse” under the DV Act includes deprivation of financial resources to which an aggrieved person is entitled under law or custom. “It is the custom and practice everywhere in the world that parents are morally obligated to provide basic amenities, including health and education.”Taking note of the father’s financial position, Justice Sandesh observed that he was engaged in a thriving business involving transactions worth crores of rupees and had demonstrated substantial financial capacity through multiple loans availed and repaid between 2021 and 2023.“It is the obligation on the part of the father, and economically he is doing business and transactions are more than crores… The court has to take note that the daughter is not earning money and she is pursuing her education and the same is a continuous education of under graduation and post graduation,” the court held.
