Major Unmarried Daughter Entitled to Post-Graduate Educational Expenses from Father Under DV Act

The Respondent, an unmarried daughter aged 23, filed an application under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act) seeking ₹16,00,000 from her father (the Petitioner) to cover fees for her Post-Graduate medical course (M.D. Dermatology).

She had secured a seat through NEET but lacked funds, eventually borrowing from her grandfather to meet the payment deadline.

The Petitioner contested the claim, arguing that the daughter attained majority in 2018 and therefore does not fall under the definition of a "child" or "aggrieved person" under the DV Act.

He further claimed financial distress and that she earns a stipend.

The Trial Court and Appellate Court both ruled in favor of the daughter, directing the father to pay.

1. Whether a major, unmarried daughter can invoke Section 20 of the DV Act for monetary relief to pursue post-graduation.

2. Whether the attainment of majority by an unmarried daughter disentitles her from receiving educational expenses/maintenance under the DV Act.

The Court primarily applied Section 20 of the DV Act, specifically Section 20(1)(d), which provides for monetary relief and maintenance "in addition to" Section 125 Cr.P.C.

It interpreted Section 2(a) ("aggrieved person") and Section 3(d)(iv) ("economic abuse") to include the deprivation of financial resources to which a woman is entitled by law or custom.

The Court relied on the Supreme Court’s holding in Neelima Choure v. Vijay Choure (2025), which established a daughter's fundamental right to education and the parents' enforceable obligation to provide funds within their financial means.

It further utilized the Madras High Court’s ruling in Jagadesan v. State of Tamil Nadu (2015), which held that a father's duty to provide for a child’s education does not extinguish upon the child attaining majority.

The Court rejected the Petitioner’s narrow interpretation that the term "child" in Section 2(b) (under 18 years) limits the scope of Section 20.

It reasoned that Section 20(1) uses the phrase "but not limited to," granting Magistrates broad discretion to address economic abuse, which includes the deprivation of educational resources.

The Court observed that because the daughter is not currently earning and is pursuing a continuous path from MBBS to MD—a path the father supported while the parents were united—he cannot now evade this moral and legal obligation.

Regarding financial capacity, the Court noted the Petitioner’s IT returns and substantial bank loans (over ₹1.27 Crores), proving he possessed the "financial resources" to facilitate his daughter's education.

The Court held that "economic abuse" remains a valid ground for an "aggrieved person" (the daughter living in a domestic relationship) to seek monetary relief for post-graduation.

The Court held that the reliefs under Section 20 have a wide connotation and are not strictly limited by the age of the child when applied as a form of monetary relief for an aggrieved person.

Consequently, the Criminal Revision Petition was dismissed, upholding the prior orders directing the Petitioner to pay ₹16,00,000.