Introduction:
The case KS v. KU (FA-681-2025) came before the Madhya Pradesh High Court at Indore, where a young woman pursuing her graduation in Mumbai was compelled to fight for her legally entitled maintenance from her father. The matter was heard by a Division Bench comprising Justice Vivek Rusia and Justice Binod Kumar Dwivedi. The Court expressed deep anguish, observing that it was “unfortunate and painful” that a daughter had to repeatedly approach courts against her father for sustenance. The case involved an appeal filed by the father challenging the Family Court’s maintenance order of INR 10,000 per month from June 5, 2022. Despite this order, the father allegedly failed to pay any amount, forcing the daughter to claim arrears amounting to approximately INR 3.75 lakhs.
Arguments of the Father:
The father, represented by Advocate Sukh Lal Gwaliory, argued that he was unemployed and had no stable source of income to pay maintenance. He contended that the financial burden was beyond his means and emphasized his inability to comply with the Family Court’s order. He also submitted that his daughter was currently residing with her maternal grandfather, and therefore, her needs were already being met. Additionally, the father highlighted his changed family circumstances, revealing that he had remarried and had a son from his second marriage, which had increased his financial responsibilities. He filed multiple petitions before the Court to press his claims, asserting that the maintenance order imposed undue hardship on him.
Arguments of the Daughter:
The daughter, represented by Advocate Himanshu Nagda, firmly opposed her father’s stance. She pointed out that her father had consistently evaded his legal and moral responsibility by filing repetitive petitions instead of supporting her education and livelihood. She argued that the claim of unemployment was misleading and intended to shirk obligations. According to her, despite the Family Court’s order, her father had not paid a single installment of maintenance, causing arrears to accumulate to around INR 3.75 lakhs. She further submitted that while her maternal grandfather had supported her, he was an aged man who could not be expected to provide for her long-term needs. Her counsel argued that the father was attempting to misuse his changed marital status and new family responsibilities as a pretext to abandon his daughter from his first marriage, which was contrary to both law and morality. She stressed that the right to maintenance under Indian law was not conditional upon the custodial arrangement or the father’s remarriage, but an absolute duty of the parent.
Court’s Judgment:
The Division Bench expressed its disappointment with the father’s conduct. Justice Vivek Rusia and Justice Binod Kumar Dwivedi observed that it was deeply troubling that a father, instead of fulfilling his duty, had compelled his daughter to litigate repeatedly just to secure basic sustenance. The Court strongly rejected the father’s contention regarding the maternal grandfather’s role, noting that an elderly relative cannot be expected to bear the responsibility of maintaining a young student pursuing higher education. The Bench reiterated that the primary obligation for maintenance rests upon the parent, and no other family member can be forced to shoulder this responsibility in law.
The Court emphasized that the Family Court’s maintenance order of INR 10,000 per month was passed after due consideration of facts, and unless proven otherwise, it was binding on the father. The Bench also noted that if the father’s contentions regarding his unemployment and lack of income were found to be false, he would be liable for misleading the Court. Recognizing the need for factual clarity, the High Court directed the Sub-Divisional Officer (SDO) and the Station House Officer (SHO) of Indore to investigate and submit a detailed report regarding the father’s actual financial status. The Bench also instructed Deputy Advocate General Sudeep Bhargava to ensure prompt communication of this order to the concerned officials and to oversee compliance.
The Court scheduled the matter for October 6, 2025, to examine the inquiry report and determine whether the father was genuinely unable to pay maintenance or was deliberately attempting to evade his obligations. While disposing of the interim arguments, the Bench underscored that a parent’s duty to maintain their child is an essential part of both social morality and legal obligation, and courts cannot condone attempts to abdicate this responsibility through false claims.
This case represents not only a dispute over maintenance but also a larger commentary on the state of familial obligations in contemporary society. The High Court’s anguish reflected its recognition that a daughter should not have to approach courts again and again just to secure what is rightfully hers. At the same time, the Court balanced fairness by ordering an independent inquiry into the father’s financial position, ensuring justice was based on verified facts rather than unsubstantiated claims.
By highlighting the plight of the daughter and holding the father accountable, the Madhya Pradesh High Court reaffirmed the principle that maintenance is not a matter of charity but a statutory right flowing from parental duty. The upcoming hearing is expected to shed further light on the enforcement of this duty in practice.