BENGALURU
The Karnataka High Court has upheld a family court order granting maintenance to an unmarried woman, ruling that she is entitled to ₹20,000 per month along with marriage expenses to be paid by her mother and elder sister. However, the court set aside a similar relief granted to her brother, observing that he had attained majority and was not eligible for such support.
The dispute pertains to the family of late T Madaiah, an employee of the Mysuru Urban Development Authority (MUDA), who passed away while in service. Following his death on June 20, 2013, his elder daughter Darshini (34) was appointed in MUDA on compassionate grounds. His wife Mangalagowramma worked as a headmistress in a government higher primary school until her retirement.
In 2019, the younger children of the family—Dhanushree (31) and Dhanush (29)—filed a petition before the Mysuru family court under Section 125 of the CrPC. They alleged that despite sufficient income and means, their mother and elder sister had neglected to maintain them.
The siblings contended that Darshini had undertaken responsibility for the family at the time of securing the compassionate appointment but later failed to fulfil that commitment after getting married and moving to Tumakuru.
On September 27, 2021, the family court directed Mangalagowramma and Darshini to pay maintenance and educational and marriage expenses. It awarded Dhanushree ₹20,000 per month until marriage and ₹10 lakh towards marriage expenses from her mother, and ₹7,000 per month along with ₹2 lakh for marriage expenses from her elder sister. Dhanush was granted ₹5 lakh from the mother, ₹2 lakh from the sister, and ₹50,000 jointly for educational expenses.
Challenging the order, Mangalagowramma and Darshini argued that both children had attained majority and were therefore not entitled to maintenance.
In his judgment delivered on April 24, Justice Manmadha Rao partly allowed the appeal. The court held that Dhanush, having completed his education and attained majority, was not entitled to maintenance under the law.
However, the court upheld the relief granted to Dhanushree, noting that she remained unmarried and was legally entitled to maintenance until her marriage, including reasonable marriage expenses. The judge observed that the family court’s award in her favour was just, reasonable, and consistent with legal principles governing maintenance to unmarried daughters.
The ruling reinforces that maintenance obligations may extend to unmarried daughters even after attaining majority, depending on their marital status and dependency.
