Karnataka HC orders father to pay Rs 16 lakh for doctor daughter's MD course

Bengaluru: In a monetary relief to a doctor under Section 20 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, the Karnataka High Court has directed her father to pay for the postgraduate medical studies.

Observing that a father cannot resist payment merely because the daughter has attained majority, the HC bench rejected the argument that she should fund her education through a bank loan and upheld concurrent orders directing the father to pay Rs 16 lakh towards her MD course expenses.

"I do not find any force in the contention of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner that the father is not liable to pay any educational expenses after she has attained the majority," observed the HC bench comprising Justice H P Sandesh.

Case Background:

These observations were made by the HC bench while considering a criminal revision petition filed by the doctor's father, who challenged the Trial Court and Appellate Court orders directing him to pay Rs 16 lakh for his daughter's first-year postgraduate medical college fee and allied educational expenses.

The daughter had moved an application before the Magistrate under Section 20(d) of the Domestic Violence Act seeking Rs 16 lakh towards her first-year PG medical education. She had cleared the National Eligibility--Entrance Test (NEET) and secured admission through the Karnataka Examination Authority to MD Dermatology at Fr. Muller's Institute of Medical Education and Research, and had to pay the fee and other expenses.

Opposing the application, the father had argued that his daughter had already completed MBBS with his financial support, and had attained majority, was receiving a stipend during postgraduate studies, and could not invoke the DV Act for such relief. He also disputed aspects of her financial need and argued that the application was intended to harass him.

Previously, the Trial Court had allowed the application after considering the daughter's lack of independent income, her rank in the admission test, her father's financial situation, etc. and directed the father to pay Rs 16 lakh to her. Aggrieved by this, the father approached the Appellate Court, which affirmed the order, observing that even though the daughter had attained majority, it is the duty of the father to meet the educational expenses of his daughter, since the wife and daughter do not have any other income. Holding that the application under Section 20(d) of the DV Act was maintainable, the Appellate Court confirmed the order of the Trial Court. Following this, the father approached the High Court.

Before the HC bench, the father's counsel argued that the daughter had completed her MBBS degree, totally funded by the petitioner-father. Now, instead of taking up the profession as a doctor, she opted to pursue post-graduation at the cost of her father, and it was only with the sole intention of subjecting him to agony, as he was already under depression. The counsel also argued that the petitioner was receiving Rs 60,000 as a monthly stipend.

Further challenging the maintainability of the application under the DV Act, the father's counsel argued that the definition of an "aggrieved person" under Section 2(a) of the DV Act would refer to a "woman" and not a "child" as defined under Section 2(b) of the DV Act. It was argued that the daughter had attained the age of majority when the petition was filed and therefore, she would not fall within the definition of aggrieved person.

The counsel argued that the definition of "domestic relationship" under Section 29f) of the DV Act means a relationship between two persons who at any point of time lived together in a relationship of marriage in a shared household. Therefore, the respondent-daughter who attained the age of 24 years could not invoke the provisions of DV Act. Section 12 of DV Act provides only for an aggrieved person or a protection officer or any other person on behalf of aggrieved person may present an application under DV Act. Likewise, even Sections 20 and 22 of the DV Act provides remedy to the aggrieved person.

Observations by High Court:

The HC bench noted that the core legal question was whether the major daughter, who is unmarried, can invoke Section 20 of the DV Act for monetary relief to pursue her post graduation and whether attainment of majority of an unmarried daughter disentitles her from getting the compensation under Section 20 of the DV Act.

It was observed by the Court that when the daughter joined the MBBS course, both her parents were living together. However, when the daughter was pursuing her medical examination, differences arose between the parents.

The Court also took note of the fact that the daughter pursued MBBS and secured good rank all over India and was admitted to Father Muller’s Medical College, Mangalore for P.G. Course. She also produced documents regarding the fee for the PG medical course.

While the father's counsel relied on decisions concerning the definition of "aggrieved person", "child", and limits of the maintenance under Section 125 CrPC including Abhilasha v. Parkash (2021), the daughter relied on judgments that recognised the breadth of Section 20 of the DV Act and the obligation of the parents to support education, including the judgment in the case of Neelima Choure v. Vijay Choure (2025).

It was observed by the HC that the judgment in the case of Abhilasha (2021) concerned maintenance under Section 125 CrPC and the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act. On the other hand, the dispute in this case arose under the DV Act. For this, the HC bench perused Sections 2(a), 2(b) and 20 of the DV Act specifying the definition of "aggrieved person", "child", and "monetary reliefs".

Apart from this, the court also relied on the Madras HC order in the case of Jagadesan v. State of Tamil Nadu and Others, where the court discussed in length Sections 12, 20, and 23 of the DV Act. Referring to this, the Court observed that Section 20 is not only confined to the conventional maintenance alone, and its language permits monetary relief to meet expenses and losses suffered by the aggrieved person and children.

"The expressions, “but is not limited to” in Section 20(1) of the Act and “in addition to maintenance”, have wide connotation and amplitude and the power of the Magistrate is not circumscribed to only (a) the loss of earnings; (b) the medical expenses; (c) the loss caused due to the destruction, damage or removal of any property from the control of the aggrieved person; and (d) the maintenance for the aggrieved person as well as her children, if any, including an order under or in addition to an order of maintenance under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. or any other law for the time being in force," the HC bench observed at the outset.

"The detailed discussion of the judgment of the Madras High Court, is very clear that Section 20 of the DV Act is for monetary relief in addition to the maintenance and the father has to meet the educational expenses of the daughter whether it is for under graduation or post graduation and it is the obligation on the part of the father to pay the maintenance. The expressions, “but is not limited to” in Section 20(1) of the Act and “in addition to maintenance”, have wide connotation and amplitude and the power of the Magistrate is not restricted. Hence, the very contention of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner that when she attained majority, she can pursue her education by obtaining the bank loan, cannot be a ground to set aside the order of the Trial Court and the Appellate Court," it concluded.

Besides, the HC bench also observed, "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. In the present case on hand, it is very clear that at the time of admitting the child to MBBS, both parents were living together and there were no differences and later differences were arisen while pursuing her under graduation."

Regarding the contention that the very daughter disowns the father and hence, she is not entitled for payment of fee, the Court observed that she was admitted to MBBS with the consent of both the parents and the father was also a part of admitting her to MBBS.

"When such being the case, the revision petitioner now cannot say that he cannot pay the fee towards the post graduation and it is the obligation on the part of the father and economically he is doing business and transaction is more than Crores and is able to avail loan and clear the same from his business. The records clearly disclose his income and his business and he availed the loan in different years i.e., 2021, 2022 and 2023, which establishes his financial capacity and the same was taken note of by the Appellate Court while confirming the order of the Trial Court. When such being the case, I do not find any force in the contention of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner that the father is not liable to pay any educational expenses after she has attained the majority," it held.

Accordingly, the HC bench dismissed the criminal revision petition filed by the father.

Also Read: Karnataka HC quashes forgery case against oncologist, pulls up Manipal Hospital