A view of the High Court of Karnataka.
| Photo Credit: File photo
Observing that an adult unmarried daughter is entitled to invoke Section 20(d) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, to seek monetary relief from her father for pursuing postgraduation amid her parents’ strained domestic relationship, the Karnataka High Court upheld a trial court order directing a man to pay ₹16 lakh towards the annual fee for his daughter’s PG medical course.
“The obligations of parents to provide basic amenities, healthcare and education cannot be said to be extinguished upon a child attaining majority. It is the custom and practice everywhere in the world that parents are morally obligated to provide basic amenities, including healthcare and education,” the high court observed.
Justice H.P. Sandesh passed the order while dismissing a revision petition filed by a 53-year-old man from Mangaluru. He had challenged two orders — one passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mangaluru, in February 2026 directing him to pay ₹16 lakh towards his daughter’s course fee, and another passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mangaluru, in April 2026 upholding the magistrate’s order.
The high court noted that the girl’s father and mother were living together when she was pursuing her MBBS course and that it was the father who had paid her fees then. The court further pointed out that all three now live in the same building, with the mother and daughter residing on one floor and the father on another owing to the strained relationship between the couple.
Also, the high court observed that the father had the financial capacity to meet his daughter’s educational expenses, as his income tax returns and bank statements revealed fixed assets worth ₹1.34 crore acquired in 2021 and multiple loans totalling ₹1.27 crore availed between 2021 and 2023. The high court further noted that the daughter had secured an All India Rank of 11,722 and gained admission at a nominal fee compared to the management quota fee of ₹75 lakh per year.
On the father’s contention that the daughter was not entitled to maintenance or educational expenses as she had attained majority, the high court noted that accepting such a contention would render the expression “in addition to”, occurring in Section 20(1)(d) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, otiose.
Citing the Supreme Court’s recent judgment, Justice Sandesh said that it had held that a daughter has an “indefeasible, legally enforceable, lawful and legitimate right to secure educational expenses from her parents” and parents in conflict could be compelled to provide necessary funds for higher education of the daughter within the limit of their financial resources.
Published – July 20, 2026 07:42 pm IST
