Every Unmarried Daughter Has Right To Get Reasonable Marriage Expenses From Her Father Irrespective Of Religion: Kerala High Court

The Kerala High Court recently considered the question as to whether there is a provision entitling a Christian daughter to realize marriage expenses from the immovable property of her father or the profits therefrom, and answered the same in the affirmative. 

The Division Bench comprising Justice Anil K. Narendran and Justice P.G. Ajithkumar perused the provisions of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, as well as the Muslim position on the aspect as revealed in Ismayil v. Fathima & Anr. (2011), and observed that, 

"The right of an unmarried daughter to get reasonable expenses concerning her marriage from her father cannot have a religious shade. It is a right of every unmarried daughter irrespective of her religion. There cannot be a discriminatory exclusion from claiming such a right based on one’s religion". 

The Court also noted Section 39 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, and discerned that the right of an unmarried daughter to get marriage expenses from her father is a legal right. 

"By taking an analogy from the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act that right, irrespective of religion can be enforced against the profits from the immovable property of the father," the Court observed. 

The two petitioners in the case are the daughters of the respondents, who had been residing with their mother, following the estranged marital relations between her and the respondent. The petitioners filed a petition before the Family Court, Palakkad, seeking realization of Rs.45,92,600/- towards their marriage expenses. They also sought a decree creating charge for the said amount on the petition schedule property.

The petitioners submitted that the respondent had purchased the petition schedule property utilizing the fund raised by selling the gold ornaments of their mother and other financial help obtained from their mother and her family members, and a house was also created on the said property in which the respondent had been residing. Subsequently, the petitioners filed an interlocutory application for an order of temporary injunction restraining the respondent from alienating or committing any act of waste in the petition schedule property. It was averred that if the property is alienated, as the respondent was trying to do, or some acts of mischief are committed thereon, their right to realize the amount claimed in the original petition would be hampered. They also sought an order of attachment in this context. 

The Family Court held that there was no reason for granting an order of injunction, particularly when an application seeking an order of attachment before judgment had already been filed. It was held that the petitioners were entitled to claim only the minimum required expenses for the marriage, and that an attachment for an amount of Rs.7,50,000/- would be enough to protect their interest. It is against the same that the present petitions were filed. 

It was contended by the counsels for the petitioner that the status of the parties had not been taken into account by the Family Court while fixing Rs.7,50,000/- as the amount required to meet the expenses for the marriages of the petitioners. Additionally, it was submitted that both petitioners, aged 26 and 21 years, were pursuing higher studies, which involves huge expenditure, and which had not been met by the respondent. It was also submitted that the respondent had falsely claimed that he had to sell the petition schedule property in order to raise funds for his treatment. It was argued by the counsels that the respondent had in fact, gifted a property worth Rs.7,50,000/-, instead of selling it otherwise to meet his requirements. 

On the other hand, it was argued by the counsels for the respondent that himself, his wife, and daughters, were all followers of the Christian Pentecost, that does not have the habit of using any ornaments including gold, silver or any type of metal ornaments or even chords, and thus could not make the demand of 50 sovereigns of gold ornaments or the like sum of the respective value from the respondent. It was thus contended that the petitioners had no right to claim such imaginary expenses and a sum amounting to Rs.22,96,300/- each from the respondent. 

The Court in this case noted that no relief as regards educational expenses was sought. The Court further noted that the petitioners had no claim over the petition schedule property, except a plea for the creation of a charge for the amount claimed towards their marriage expenses, and added that if the were so entitled to get a charge in the property, they could claim injunction against alienation and commission of acts of waste.

The Court thus found the petitioners entitled to claim a charge on the immovable property of the respondent, and observed that an application for a temporary injunction against alienation would thus be legally sustainable. 

"However, when the petitioners already have filed a petition for attachment of the same property of the respondent, there is no justification for the petitioner to claim the equitable relief of injunction prohibiting the respondent from alienating the property or committing acts of waste. Applying for injunction and simultaneously an application for attachment of the property shows the intention of the petitioners. Their intention is not merely to secure their right to realize the money becomes due under the decree that may be passed in O.P. No. 87 of 2022, but to cause embarrassment and inconvenience to their father," the Court importantly noted. 

It thus observed that the Family Court had rightly dismissed their application for temporary injunction restraining the respondent from alienating or committing any act of waste in the petition schedule property.

The Court proceeded to ascertain that although the counsels for the petitioners had claimed that the petitioners had sought for expenses in connection with their education as well, the pleadings revealed that the claim was with respect to marriage expenses alone. The Court further noted that the petitioners had not denied the respondent's averment that they followed Pentecostal belief. "If so, the claim of the petitioners that Rs.18,96,300/- is required for the purchase of 50 sovereigns of gold ornaments for each of the petitioners in connection with their marriage is prima facie baseless," it added. 

The Court was therefore of the opinion that the amount to meet reasonable expenses in connection with the marriages of the petitioners would not exceed Rs.15 lakhs, and that an attachment to secure an amount of Rs.15 lakhs would protect the interest of the petitioners. The Court thus modified the order of the Family Court to the extent that there shall be an attachment of the petition schedule property for securing an amount of Rs.15 lakhs, and directed the Family Court to withdraw the attachment if the respondent furnished security for the said amount by way of fixed deposit or other similar modes. 

The petitioner were represented by Advocates Jacob Sebastian, K.V. Winston, Anu Jacob, and Divya R. Nair. Advocates Shyam S., and N.K. Karnis appeared on behalf of the respondent. 

Case Title: XXX & Anr. v. YYY

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 195

Click Here To Read/ Download The Judgment