The Delhi High Court has upheld an order in favour of a daughter and ruled that a parent’s responsibility to support and raise a child is a separate legal responsibility. The court said that money invested in a child’s PPF account cannot be used by the father to meet or reduce his maintenance responsibility, even if there are marital disputes between the parents.
The case was heard by Justice Neena Bansal Krishna in a Regular First Appeal filed by the father under Section 96 read with Order XLI of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC). The appeal challenged an order of the Additional District Judge, who had directed the father to pay ₹8,13,853.79 to his daughter under Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC.
PPF Account Opened for Daughter
The daughter was the beneficiary of a PPF account that her father had opened in a bank when she was a minor. The account matured, but the father closed it in 2017 and withdrew the entire amount of ₹8,13,853.79.
The father had given an undertaking to the bank that the money would be used for his daughter’s education and welfare. However, according to the daughter, the amount was never used for these purposes.
At the time, the daughter was studying for a BBA degree and claimed that she was facing difficulties in paying her educational and other expenses due to a lack of funds.
Daughter Learned That Account Had Been Closed
The daughter became a major in 2016 and approached the bank to convert the minor PPF account into a regular account in her own name by removing her father as guardian. However, the bank informed her that the PPF account had already been closed by her father.
She alleged that there were marital disputes between her parents and that she was living with her mother. She further claimed that her father had withdrawn her money to put financial pressure on her mother.
Daughter Filed Recovery Suit
The daughter filed a suit seeking recovery of ₹8,13,853.79 along with interest. She also filed an application under Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC, seeking a judgment based on the admissions made by her father.
The District Judge found that the father had clearly admitted withdrawing the amount and had also undertaken to use it for his daughter’s benefit. The court therefore ordered him to pay the entire amount along with interest. The father challenged this decision before the Delhi High Court.
Court Says PPF Money Belonged to Daughter
The High Court noted that the PPF account had been closed in accordance with the PPF Act and that the closure itself was not illegal. However, the court held that the money invested in the child’s name belonged to the daughter.
The court said that the father could receive or handle the money in his capacity as the child’s guardian, but he could not use it to reduce or fulfil his own legal responsibility to maintain his daughter.
Maintenance Is a Separate Responsibility
The High Court explained that savings or investments made for a child are meant to create a financial fund for future use. Maintenance, on the other hand, covers the day-to-day expenses involved in raising and supporting a child.
The court said that marital disputes between the parents cannot be a reason for using the child’s investment to meet the father’s maintenance responsibility. Doing so would effectively mean using the child’s own money to fulfil the father’s legal obligation.
Father Was Already Paying Maintenance
The court also noted that the father was paying ₹12,000 per month to his daughter under an order of the Family Court. The High Court said this payment was made as part of his responsibility to maintain his daughter and could not be adjusted against the PPF amount.
The court further noted that the father was also paying ₹35,000 per month as maintenance to his wife. However, the court said that the wife’s right to maintenance was separate from the daughter’s right to receive her own money.
Appeal Dismissed
The Delhi High Court concluded that the daughter was legally entitled to receive the ₹8,13,853.79 withdrawn from her PPF account. The father was not entitled to adjust this amount against his maintenance responsibility.
The court upheld the District Judge’s order directing payment of the entire amount along with interest and dismissed the father’s appeal.
Advocate Rajnish Kumar Jha represented the father, while Advocate Shubham Gupta represented the daughter.
- Download Court Order PDF (This PDF is available for Premium Users Only. Click here to join premium)
