The right to maintenance is a cornerstone of social justice embedded in India’s legal system. It ensures that vulnerable dependents—such as wives, children, and parents—are not left destitute when those with the means to support them neglect their duty. Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (now replaced by Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023) is a secular provision that transcends religious boundaries and imposes a moral and legal obligation upon individuals to maintain their dependents.
However, the question of whether a major, unmarried Christian daughter can demand maintenance from her father recently came before the Kerala High Court in Varghese Kuruvila @ Sunny Kuruvila v. Annie Varghese & Anr. [R.P.(F.C.) No. 157 of 2021, decided on 29 October 2025 by Justice Dr. Kauser Edappagath]. The judgment clarified a nuanced distinction between the rights of Hindu, Muslim, and Christian daughters under personal and secular law.
Background of the Case
The Parties
The petitioner, Varghese Kuruvila @ Sunny Kuruvila, was a 65-year-old Christian businessman based in Ernakulam. The respondents were his wife, Annie Varghese, aged 50, and their 27-year-old daughter, Sanjana Sara Varghese.
The mother and daughter filed a maintenance petition before the Family Court, Ernakulam (M.C. No. 306 of 2017), claiming monthly maintenance of ₹30,000 and ₹15,000, respectively. They alleged that despite possessing substantial means, the husband/father had neglected to maintain them.
Family Court’s Decision
After evaluating the evidence, the Family Court ordered the father to pay ₹20,000 per month to his wife and ₹10,000 per month to his daughter. In addition, the court directed him to reimburse ₹30,000 toward the daughter’s educational expenses incurred from January to April 2017.
Issues Before the High Court
- Whether the unmarried major Christian daughter was entitled to claim maintenance from her father under Section 125 CrPC, despite being an adult and not suffering from any physical or mental disability.
- Whether the wife, who was living separately from her husband, was justified in doing so, or whether such separation amounted to desertion, disentitling her from maintenance under Section 125(4) CrPC.
- Whether the wife’s employment and earning capacity disqualified her from claiming maintenance, on the ground that she had sufficient means to maintain herself.
I) Can a Major Unmarried Christian Daughter Claim Maintenance?
Statutory Framework
Section 125(1)(c) CrPC (now Section 144(1)(c) BNSS) allows a child to claim maintenance only until attaining majority. The sole exception is when the child, whether son or daughter, suffers from any physical or mental abnormality or injury that renders them unable to maintain themselves.
The section reads in substance that a person having sufficient means must maintain his legitimate or illegitimate child (not being a married daughter) who has attained majority only if such child, by reason of physical or mental abnormality or injury, cannot maintain themselves.
Hence, for adult daughters, the statute is narrowly confined—maintenance is permissible only when incapacity is proven.
Court’s Reasoning
The court found that Sanjana Sara Varghese was a practicing lawyer with no physical or mental disability. Therefore, she did not satisfy the statutory exception.
Justice Edappagath observed that while the CrPC is secular, its scope for adult children is restrictive. The benefit available to unmarried daughters under the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act (HAMA), 1956, or under Muslim personal law, does not automatically extend to Christians, who lack a corresponding personal-law provision.
Precedents Considered
The court relied on several landmark judgments:
Jagdish Jugtawat v. Manju Lata & Ors. [(2002) 5 SCC 422]: The Supreme Court allowed maintenance for a major unmarried Hindu daughter under Section 125 CrPC until her marriage, drawing support from Section 20(3) HAMA, which obligates Hindu fathers to maintain unmarried daughters.
Abhilasha v. Parkash & Ors. [(2021) 13 SCC 99]: The Court clarified that Jagdish Jugtawat cannot be read to extend a major daughter’s maintenance claim under Section 125 CrPC by invoking HAMA. However, when the Family Court has concurrent jurisdiction under both CrPC and HAMA, it may grant such relief to avoid multiplicity of proceedings.
Justice Edappagath emphasised that these precedents are confined to Hindus, as Section 20(3) HAMA is inapplicable to Christians.
He further cited the Full Bench ruling in Mathew Varghese v. Rosamma Varghese [2003 (3) KLT 6 (FB)], which recognised only a Christian father’s obligation to maintain his minor child, not an adult daughter.
Conclusion on the First Issue
The court unequivocally held that:
“An unmarried Christian daughter who has attained majority is not entitled to claim maintenance from her father under Section 125 CrPC (Section 144 BNSS) unless she is unable to maintain herself by reason of any physical or mental abnormality or injury.”
Accordingly, the Family Court’s order granting ₹10,000 per month to the daughter was set aside.
II) Whether the Wife’s Separate Residence Disentitled Her to Maintenance
Legal Standard
Section 125(4) CrPC (now Section 144(4) BNSS) disqualifies a wife from receiving maintenance if she:
- lives in adultery,
- refuses to live with her husband without sufficient reason, or
- lives separately by mutual consent.
Thus, the determination hinged on whether Annie Varghese’s decision to reside in Mumbai, away from her husband, was justified.
Court’s Findings
Evidence revealed that the couple’s younger son was ailing and studying in Mumbai. The wife relocated there to care for him and oversee his education and treatment. The husband did not dispute the son’s illness or residence with the mother.
The court recognised that while a wife has marital duties toward her husband, she also bears a broader parental obligation toward her children, especially when their health or welfare is involved. Living apart for a child’s well-being constitutes a “sufficient reason” under Section 125(4).
Justice Edappagath observed:
“When a wife chooses to reside away from her husband to provide better treatment and education for her ailing son, it cannot be said that she is living separately without sufficient reason.”
Hence, the wife was entitled to maintenance despite living apart.
III) Whether the Wife’s Earning Capacity Bars Maintenance
The Argument
The husband contended that his wife was employed and capable of maintaining herself. He alleged that she held part-time jobs and therefore did not qualify as “unable to maintain herself.”
Judicial Interpretation
The expression “unable to maintain herself” in Section 125 CrPC does not require a wife to be destitute or penniless. The Supreme Court in Rajnesh v. Neha [(2021) 2 SCC 324] held that even an earning wife may receive maintenance if her income is insufficient to maintain the same standard of living as during the marriage.
Similarly, in Chaturbhuj v. Sita Bai [(2008) 2 SCC 316], the Court ruled that a wife’s limited earnings do not bar maintenance; the key test is whether she can sustain herself “in accordance with the lifestyle of her husband in the matrimonial home.”
In Sunita Kachwaha v. Anil Kachwaha [(2014) 16 SCC 715], it was held that mere employment is not a ground to deny maintenance if the income is meagre or irregular.
Application to Facts
Annie Varghese admitted to part-time work “on and off,” but there was no evidence of a permanent position or steady income. The court noted that occasional earnings or casual employment do not disqualify a wife from maintenance.
By contrast, the husband admitted he owned two flats worth ₹90 lakh and operated “AGL International Recruiting Agency,” with average monthly bank withdrawals of about ₹60,000.
Considering his financial capacity and her needs, the court found the ₹20,000-per-month award reasonable. Additionally, the educational expenses of ₹30,000 for their son were rightly reimbursed to her.
Decision
The High Court partly allowed the revision petition:
- Maintenance to Daughter (Respondent No. 2): Set aside.
- Maintenance to Wife (Respondent No. 1): Upheld — ₹20,000 per month plus ₹30,000 toward education expenses.
This nuanced outcome balanced the statutory limits of Section 125 CrPC with equitable considerations for dependent spouses.
Conclusion
Kerala High Court’s judgment in Varghese Kuruvila @ Sunny Kuruvila v. Annie Varghese & Anr. (R.P.(F.C.) No. 157 of 2021, decided 29 October 2025) marks an important clarification in family-law jurisprudence.
The court held that:
- A major unmarried Christian daughter cannot claim maintenance from her father under Section 125 CrPC (Section 144 BNSS) unless she suffers from physical or mental incapacity.
- A wife living separately to care for an ailing child has sufficient reason and remains entitled to maintenance.
- A wife’s partial or occasional employment does not automatically disqualify her from receiving maintenance.
This decision harmonises statutory interpretation with constitutional morality by protecting genuine dependents while respecting the legislative limits of secular maintenance law.
It also exposes a lacuna in Christian personal law—a void that Parliament must address to ensure equal family-law protection for all women and children, irrespective of faith. Until such reform occurs, the judgment stands as a reminder that equality under law sometimes depends less on constitutional ideals and more on the community into which one is born.