Father Cannot Utilise Child's PPF Funds To Offset Maintenance Obligations: Delhi HC

New Delhi: The Delhi High Court has dismissed a father's appeal against a money decree of over Rs.8.13 lakh, holding that a father cannot appropriate funds invested in his daughter's Public Provident Fund (PPF) account and adjust them against his independent legal obligation to pay her maintenance.

A single-judge bench of Justice Neena Bansal Krishna was hearing a Regular First Appeal filed by Sudhir Kawatra under Section 96 read with Order XLI of the Code of Civil Procedure, challenging a judgment and decree dated 10.01.2023 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Delhi, whereby a suit filed by his daughter, Shamli Kawatra, was decreed under Order XII Rule 6 CPC for recovery of Rs.8,13,853.79 along with interest at 8% per annum. The Plaintiff had contended that a PPF account opened in her name by her father in 1999 had matured and was closed by him in 2016 without her knowledge, with the entire amount withdrawn on an undertaking to the bank that the funds would be spent on her higher education and wellbeing an undertaking, she alleged, that was never honoured.

The Defendant did not dispute the withdrawal or the undertaking, but argued that he had already paid Rs.6,00,000 towards the Plaintiff's maintenance pursuant to a Family Court order, and Rs.35,000 per month to his wife which was also being utilised by the Plaintiff, and that these amounts ought to be adjusted against the PPF sum. He further contended that the suit involved mixed questions of fact and law requiring trial, and that judgment on admissions was therefore impermissible. The Additional District Judge had rejected these contentions, holding that the obligation to maintain a child is an independent legal responsibility that cannot be set off against an investment made in the child's name, and decreed the entire suit amount.

Dismissing the appeal, the High Court held that while a parent may create an investment corpus in a child's name during minority, this is distinct from maintenance, which "is the day-to-day expenditure in the up-bringing of the child which is the independent legal responsibility of a parent." The Court observed that marital discord between the parents could not justify the father using the child's investment to discharge his own maintenance liability, noting that "the amount could not have been transferred by the Defendant to his own Account and he was liable to give this money to the Plaintiff."

The Court further held that the father had taken the withdrawn amount only in a fiduciary capacity, as a guardian, and that it could not be utilised to offset his responsibility of maintenance towards the child. It reasoned that just as the wife's right to maintenance was an independent right distinct from any other entitlement, the daughter could not be denied money to which she was lawfully entitled merely because maintenance had separately been paid to her or her mother. 

Upholding the trial court's exercise of discretion under Order XII Rule 6 CPC to decree the entire suit amount rather than the partial decree originally sought the High Court held that the impugned judgment was well reasoned and did not merit any interference.

Accordingly, the Court dismissed the Appeal along with all pending applications.

Appearances:

For the Appellant: Mr. Rajnish Kumar Jha and Ms. Dolli Rani, Advocates.

For the Respondent: Mr. Shubham Gupta, Advocate.

Case Title: Sudhir Kawatra vs. Shamli Kawatra, RFA 285/2023