Cuttack, September 16, 2025 – The Orissa High Court has reaffirmed the legal right of a wife and her unmarried daughter to claim maintenance from the husband/father, dismissing a challenge by a Sambalpur-based lawyer who argued he was not liable to support them.
The case arose after G. Debendra Rao contested a 2019 order of the Family Court, Bargarh, which had directed him to pay ₹5,000 per month each to his estranged wife, G. Puspa Prabha Rao, and their daughter.
Background of the Dispute
The couple married in 2001 and later had a daughter. However, their relationship soured amid allegations of dowry demands, leading to separation in 2004. Mr. Rao obtained an ex-parte divorce decree in 2007, though his wife contested it through subsequent legal proceedings.
In 2012, the wife and daughter approached the Family Court under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), seeking maintenance. The court ruled in their favour, fixing the monthly amount at ₹10,000 in total.
Mr. Rao, a practicing advocate, challenged the order, claiming his wife was well-educated (holding M.A. and LL.B degrees), financially independent as a teacher and LIC agent, and therefore not entitled to support. He also contended that his daughter, having reached majority, could not claim maintenance under Section 125 CrPC.
High Court’s Ruling
Justice G. Satapathy rejected the husband’s arguments, making several important legal clarifications:
- Wife’s Right to Maintenance – The court held that even if the wife has some qualifications or limited income, she is entitled to be maintained according to the standard of living of her husband. There was no concrete proof that she earned enough to support herself and her daughter.
- Unmarried Daughter’s Right – While Section 125 CrPC limits maintenance to minor children (except in cases of disability), the court invoked Section 20(3) of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act (HAMA), 1956, which obliges a Hindu father to support his unmarried daughter until she can maintain herself or until marriage.
- The court cited precedents including Jagdish Jugtawat v. Manju Lata (2002) and observed that forcing the daughter to file a fresh case under HAMA would be unnecessary when the Family Court already had jurisdiction.
- Desertion Argument Rejected – The court noted that since Mr. Rao had remarried, his first wife was legally justified in living separately. Therefore, her right to maintenance could not be denied on the ground of desertion.
- Financial Capacity – Income tax returns and other financial documents showed that Mr. Rao had sufficient means, including practice as an advocate and ownership of land in Sambalpur. His plea of financial incapacity was not accepted.
Significance of the Judgment
This decision reinforces two key legal principles:
- Unmarried daughters are entitled to maintenance from their fathers under Hindu law until they marry, even after attaining majority.
- Educational qualifications alone do not disqualify a wife from receiving maintenance if she lacks sufficient independent income.
By confirming the Family Court’s order, the High Court ensured that the wife and daughter’s rights to a dignified life were protected, consistent with the social welfare objectives of Indian maintenance laws.
Conclusion
The judgment sends a clear message that maintenance laws are designed to prevent destitution and uphold family responsibilities, and that courts will not allow technicalities to deny legitimate claims.
PDF copy of G.Debendra Rao versus G.Puspa Prabha Rao