Case Note & Summary
The matter arose from a criminal revision petition filed by the father against the order of the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mangalore, confirming the trial court's direction to pay Rs.16,00,000/- to his daughter as post-graduation educational expenses under Section 20(d) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. The respondent daughter, a 23-year-old MBBS graduate, filed an application before the Magistrate seeking the amount for her first year M.D. Dermatology course at Fr. Muller's Institute of Medical Education and Research, Mangalore. She claimed she secured admission through KEA counseling with an annual fee of Rs.13,87,994/-, plus college fees and other expenses totaling Rs.16,00,000/-. She stated she had no income and borrowed from her grandfather to meet the initial payment. The father objected, contending the application was harassment, the daughter could have availed a lower fee seat, she receives a monthly stipend, her mother has income, and he himself was under depression and suffered business losses. The trial court examined the documents, including the daughter's rank, admission details, and the father's financial capacity revealed by credit transactions and annual expenses, and allowed the application. The appellate court re-appreciated the evidence, noting the father's acquisition of fixed assets, various loans, and the daughter's lack of independent income, and upheld the order. The High Court heard arguments from the revision petitioner challenging the findings as against evidence and law, and reserved the matter for judgment. The judgment as provided ends during narration of petitioner's counsel's submissions; the final decision of the High Court is not included in the extracted text. The case thus remains inconclusive in the available material, with the core legal issue being the extent of a father's maintenance obligation under the DV Act for an adult child's higher education.
Headnote
A) Family Law - Maintenance and Educational Expenses - Maintainability Under DV Act - Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, Section 20(d) - The respondent daughter filed an application seeking direction to her father to pay Rs.16,00,000/- towards her first year post-graduation fees in M.D. Dermatology. The trial court and appellate court held the application maintainable under Section 20(d) of the DV Act, observing that the father's obligation to meet educational expenses continues even after the daughter attains majority if she has no independent source of income. Held, the application is maintainable (Paras 2, 4-5).
B) Family Law - Father's Obligation to Pay Educational Expenses - Adult Daughter's Need - Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, Section 20(d) - The courts below found that the daughter, aged 23, had no means to pay the post-graduation fees, having borrowed from her grandfather, and that the father had sufficient financial capacity shown by his income tax returns and loan history. The appellate court specifically noted that it is the duty of the father to meet educational expenses of his daughter. Held, the father is liable to pay the claimed amount (Paras 4-5).
C) Procedural Law - Revision Jurisdiction - Scope of Interference Under CrPC - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Sections 397, 401 - The revision petition challenged concurrent findings of fact by two courts below. The High Court was called upon to examine whether the orders suffered from jurisdictional error or perversity. The court's analysis focused on the evidence of the father's income, assets, and liabilities, and the reasonableness of the educational expenses claimed (Paras 6-8).
Issue of Consideration
Whether an application under Section 20(d) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, is maintainable for directing the father to pay post-graduation educational fees for his daughter who has attained majority.
Law Points
- Section 20(d) of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act
- 2005 covers educational expenses
- father's duty extends to post-graduation if child has no independent income
- financial capacity of father considered
Case Details
2026 LawText (KAR) (07) 107
Criminal Revision Petition No. 870 of 2026
Hon'ble Mr. Justice H.P. Sandesh
Sri S. Balakrishnan for petitioner, Sri Ajay Prabhu M. for respondent
Ms. Viyola Prathvi Correa
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal revision petition against an appellate order confirming direction to pay educational expenses under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner (father) sought to set aside the judgment of the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mangalore in Crl.A.No.140/2026 which confirmed the JMFC (III Court), Mangalore order in Crl.Misc.No.1/2024 directing him to pay Rs.16,00,000/- to the respondent daughter as post-graduation college fees.
Filing Reason
The respondent daughter filed an application under Section 20(d) of the DV Act claiming she had secured admission to M.D. Dermatology but had no independent means to pay the annual fees of approximately Rs.16,00,000/-; she borrowed from her grandfather and sought reimbursement from her father. The trial court allowed the claim, which was upheld on appeal, leading the father to file the present revision petition.
Previous Decisions
The JMFC (III Court), Mangalore, by order dated 03.02.2026 in Crl.Misc.No.1/2024, directed the father to pay Rs.16,00,000/-. The II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mangalore, by judgment dated 28.04.2026 in Crl.A.No.140/2026, confirmed the trial court order.
Issues
Whether an application under Section 20(d) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, is maintainable for claiming educational expenses for an adult daughter?
Whether the father is obligated to pay post-graduation fees for his daughter who has attained majority but has no independent income?
Whether the courts below correctly assessed the father's financial capacity and the reasonableness of the educational expenses?
Submissions/Arguments
The revision petitioner (father) contended that the daughter, aged 23 and already holding an MBBS degree fully funded by him, should take up a profession instead of pursuing post-graduation at his cost; she is receiving a monthly stipend of Rs.60,000/-; the application was filed with the intention to harass him and extract money; the claimed expenses were inflated and not substantiated; the mother has independent income and the family has funds; he suffered from depression and business losses.
The respondent (daughter) claimed she secured admission through KEA counseling with a lower fee of Rs.13,87,994/- compared to the institute's usual fee of Rs.75,15,000/-; she had no means to pay and borrowed from her grandfather; the father had sufficient financial capacity shown by his credit transactions and annual expenses of Rs.27,78,948/-; the educational expense was necessary as an MBBS without post-graduation has limited value.
Ratio Decidendi
Under Section 20(d) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, a father is liable to pay educational expenses for his daughter even after she attains majority, if she has no independent source of income and the expenses are reasonable and within his financial capacity.
Judgment Excerpts
she has successfully written NEET examination and secured a commendable rank
the petitioner has got All India Rank 11,722 and she has got admission in Fr. Muller’s Medical College in M.D.
even though the daughter has attained majority, it is the duty of the father to meet the educational expenses of his daughter, since the wife and daughter are not having any other income
Procedural History
The respondent daughter filed Crl.Misc.No.1/2024 before the JMFC (III Court), Mangalore under Section 20(d) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, seeking direction to the father to pay Rs.16,00,000/- towards first year post-graduation fees. The trial court allowed the application on 03.02.2026. The father filed Criminal Appeal No.140/2026 before the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mangalore, which was dismissed on 28.04.2026, confirming the trial court order. Thereafter, the father preferred the present criminal revision petition before the High Court under Sections 397/401 CrPC.
Acts & Sections
- Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005: 20(d)
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: 397, 401
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023: 438, 442
