Father Must Fund Daughter's Post-Graduation Even After She Turns 18, Karnataka HC Holds Under DV Act
Karnataka High Court dismisses a father's revision against orders directing him to pay Rs 16 lakh towards his daughter's MD Dermatology fees, holding that a major unmarried daughter pursuing education retains a right to educational support under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.
The High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru has dismissed a criminal revision petition filed by a Mangaluru father who challenged concurrent orders directing him to pay Rs 16,00,000 towards his daughter's first-year post-graduation fees for an MD in Dermatology. Justice H.P. Sandesh, sitting singly, held on 17 July 2026 that a daughter's attainment of majority does not extinguish the father's obligation to fund her continuing education under Section 20 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. The judgment resolves a conflict between two lines of authority — one suggesting major daughters cannot claim maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and the other recognising a broader right to educational support under the DV Act.
The Dispute Before the High Court
The respondent, Ms. Viyola Prathvi Correa, aged about 23 years and the daughter of the petitioner Mr. Vincent Correa, appeared before the Judicial Magistrate First Class (III Court), Mangaluru, in Crl. Misc. No. 1 of 2024. She sought a direction to her father to pay first-year college fees for an MD (Dermatology) post-graduation course at Fr. Muller's Institute of Medical Education and Research, Mangaluru.
Her application stated that she had written the NEET post-graduation examination and secured All India Rank 11,722. Through Karnataka Examination Authority (KEA) counselling, she secured a seat at Fr. Muller's for an annual KEA fee of Rs 13,87,994, against a market rate of Rs 75,15,000 per year for the same seat. She also needed to pay Rs 1,50,000 as college/tuition fees to the institute directly, along with miscellaneous expenses towards books, stationery, and medical equipment. The aggregate came to Rs 16,00,000 for the first year.
She stated she had no independent means and had borrowed Rs 14,00,000 from her grandfather, who transferred the amount to her account on 29 November 2025. She paid the KEA fees of Rs 13,87,994 on 2 December 2025 due to urgency, and sought reimbursement and the balance amount from her father.
Her father filed objections denying that she secured the admission through KEA counselling and asserting that a better rank would have attracted a lower fee under the general merit category. He contended she was receiving a monthly stipend of Rs 60,000 as a post-graduate student, her mother had repaid gold loans of Rs 4,30,000 and Rs 3,61,000 from Bank of Baroda in December 2025, and the family ran an idly business that generated income. He also attributed his own business losses to mental illness arising from harassment by his wife and daughter.
Orders by the Trial Court and Appellate Court
The JMFC (III Court), Mangaluru allowed the application by order dated 3 February 2026. The Trial Court found on the record that the daughter held All India Rank 11,722 and had been admitted to Fr. Muller's for the MD programme. It noted that the daughter and her mother had no other source of income and that Rs 14,00,000 had been transferred by the grandfather to her bank account on 29 November 2025. Turning to the father's financial capacity, the Trial Court observed that his account showed credit transactions of Rs 21,25,000, with debits of Rs 15,56,469, Rs 5,65,575, and Rs 74,974 on 22 September 2025 alone, and that his annual expenses stood at Rs 27,78,948. The court also reasoned that an MBBS degree without an MD has limited value in the medical profession today. It directed the father to pay Rs 16,00,000 under Section 20(d) of the DV Act.
The father appealed in Crl.A. No. 140 of 2026 before the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mangaluru. The Appellate Court examined his income tax returns and found he had acquired fixed assets worth Rs 1,34,44,130 in 2021. Bank of Baroda records showed he had availed an overdraft loan of Rs 50,00,000 in August 2021, a housing loan of Rs 32,18,000 in March 2022, a gold loan of Rs 4,71,000 in October 2023, a car loan of Rs 40,25,000 in November 2023, and a further gold loan of Rs 11,00,000 in November 2023, with total outstanding borrowings of Rs 1,27,96,529. The Appellate Court concluded that even though the daughter had attained majority, the father remained duty-bound to meet her educational expenses when neither she nor her mother had any income, and confirmed the Trial Court's order by judgment dated 28 April 2026.
The Legal Question: Can a Major Unmarried Daughter Invoke Section 20 of the DV Act?
Before the High Court, the father's counsel pressed a focused statutory argument. The definition of “aggrieved person” under Section 2(a) of the DV Act refers to a woman who is or has been in a domestic relationship with the respondent and who alleges domestic violence. A “child” is separately defined under Section 2(b) as any person below the age of 18 years. The daughter was born on 17 August 2000 and had attained majority on 17 August 2018, and was 23 years old at the time of filing. The argument was that she could not be an aggrieved person for the purposes of Section 20 because she had ceased to be a child as defined, and Section 12 of the DV Act limits applicants to aggrieved persons or those acting on their behalf.
The father's counsel relied on three decisions. In G. Kalasegowda v. Smt. N.K. Nethravathi, Crl.R.P. No. 795 of 2015, this Court had held that maintenance under Section 20 can be awarded only to the aggrieved person and to children, and that a child means a person below 18 years. In Bhaskar Reddy v. Ms. Roshini, Crl.R.P. No. 528 of 2025 decided on 29 January 2026, this Court followed Kalasegowda and referred to Rajnesh v. Neha and Another, (2021) 2 SCC 324. Counsel also cited the Supreme Court's judgment in Abhilasha v. Parkash and Others, (2021) 13 SCC 99, which held that a major unmarried daughter cannot claim maintenance under Section 125 of the CrPC and should instead approach the Family Court under Section 20(3) of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956.
The daughter's counsel countered that the daughter was entitled to educational support even after attaining majority, since she was not earning and was in continuous education. She had been admitted to MBBS when both parents lived together; differences arose only while she was in the course. Counsel relied on this Court's judgment in Kum. Bhavana N. v. Sri Nagaraju S, Crl.R.P. No. 556 of 2025 decided on 25 September 2025, where it was held that a daughter on attaining majority falls within the definition of “women” and may become an aggrieved person if she can establish domestic violence under Section 3 of the DV Act. The Allahabad High Court's decision in Naimullah Sheikh and Another v. State of U.P. and Others, neutral citation 2024:AHC:4853, was also placed before the Court on Section 20 powers. Most significantly, counsel pointed to the Supreme Court's recent decision in Neelima Choure v. Vijay Choure and Another, Criminal Appeal No. 10 of 2025 decided on 2 January 2025, where the Apex Court held that a daughter has “an indefeasible, legally enforceable, lawful and legitimate right to secure educational expenses from her parents” and that the daughter has a fundamental right to pursue education for which parents can be compelled to provide funds within their financial resources.
How the Court Reasoned
Justice Sandesh began by extracting Sections 2(a), 2(b), and 20 of the DV Act in full. He then turned at length to the Madras High Court's judgment in Jagadesan v. State of Tamil Nadu and Others, (2015) 1 MWN (Cr.) 451, which analysed Sections 12, 20, and 23 of the DV Act and specifically addressed the phrase “but is not limited to” in Section 20(1).
The Madras High Court had held that “economic abuse” under Section 3(d)(iv) of the DV Act includes deprivation of economic or financial resources to which the aggrieved person is entitled under any law or custom, and that a father is morally and legally obligated to provide health and education. Critically, the Madras judgment held that the obligation of parents to provide basic amenities, including education, is not extinguished when a child attains majority. The expression “but is not limited to” in Section 20(1) was read alongside the words “in addition to maintenance” in Section 20(1)(d) to give the Magistrate broad powers to grant monetary relief beyond the enumerated categories of earnings, medical expenses, and property loss. If the contention that a child ceases to be entitled to educational support on attaining majority were accepted, the phrase “in addition to” in Section 20(1)(d) would become otiose.
Justice Sandesh adopted this reasoning and applied it to the facts. On the factual side, he accepted that when the daughter joined the MBBS course, both parents were living together. Differences arose while she was pursuing her undergraduate degree. She had now secured a meritorious seat through KEA counselling, demonstrated by bank records showing the grandfather's transfer of Rs 14,00,000 and the fee payment on 2 December 2025. The daughter was not earning. The father, by contrast, had availed multiple loans amounting to crores and had annual expenses of Rs 27,78,948, demonstrating his financial capacity.
On the legal side, the Court expressly preferred the view in Neelima Choure and Bhavana over the restrictive reading in Kalasegowda and Bhaskar Reddy. The argument that the daughter, having attained majority, could obtain a bank loan to fund her education was rejected outright as insufficient reason to set aside the orders of two courts below that had examined the evidence.
The Court also dismissed the contention that because the daughter had distanced herself from her father, she was disentitled to fees. The father had consented to her MBBS admission when the family was intact. Having done so, he could not resile from the obligation when the same daughter sought to pursue post-graduation in the same medical stream. The father's business transactions running into crores and his capacity to avail and repay large loans placed beyond doubt his ability to meet the Rs 16,00,000 demand.
Order
Criminal Revision Petition No. 870 of 2026 was dismissed. The judgment of the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mangaluru in Crl.A. No. 140 of 2026 dated 28 April 2026, which confirmed the JMFC (III Court) order in Crl. Misc. No. 1 of 2024 dated 3 February 2026, stands. Mr. Vincent Correa remains directed to pay Rs 16,00,000 to his daughter Ms. Viyola Prathvi Correa towards her first-year post-graduation fees for the MD (Dermatology) course at Fr. Muller's Institute of Medical Education and Research, Mangaluru.