Kerala High Court: In a batch of petitions among the father and his daughters (aged 21 years and 26 years) challenging the Family Court order partly allowing attachment of property to secure an amount of Rs. 7,50,000 towards wedding expenses of daughters, the Division Bench of Anil K. Narendran and P.G. Ajithkumar*, JJ. held that there is no religious shade over the right of an unmarried daughter to get reasonable marriage expenses from her father and allowed attachment to secure Rs 15 lakhs for protecting the daughters’ interests.
The petitioners mainly sought realization of Rs. 45,92,600/- towards their wedding expenses and decree creating charge for the said amount on the schedule property. They also sought temporary injunction restraining their father from alienating or committing any act of waste in the schedule property on which a residential house was constructed, based on contention that he purchased the said property utilizing the fund raised by selling gold ornaments of their mother with other financial help obtained from their mother and other family members.
The Family Court relied on J.W. Aragadan v. Hashmi N.S., 2021 SCC OnLine Ker 4991 while refusing injunction against alienation or committing any act of waste related to schedule property and held that an attachment for an amount of Rs. 7,50,000 would be enough to protect their interest.
The Court in the instant matter observed that the marital relationship of the father and mother of the petitioners seems to be completely estranged, involving litigations, and the daughters have been residing with their mother. It further observed that the petitioners have no claim related to educational expenses or the scheduled property except the plea for creating charge for an amount claimed towards wedding expenses, and the Court cannot create a charge but only recognize and declare a pre-existing charge.
The Court looked into the question of whether there is a provision to entitle a Christian daughter to realize marriage expenses as exists for an unmarried Hindu daughter. The Court relied on Ismayil v. Fathima, 2011 SCC OnLine Ker 3215 wherein, it was held that not only a Muslim father but every father irrespective of religion has an obligation to pay expenses related to his daughter’s marriage.
The Court commented that the right of an unmarried daughter to get reasonable expenses from her father concerning her marriage cannot have a religious shade. There cannot be a discriminatory exclusion from claiming such a right based on one’s religion. The Court thereby held that the father in the instant case has an obligation to meet reasonable expenses related to the marriage of his daughters.
The Court found the daughters’ claim regarding 50 sovereigns of gold ornaments baseless due to their Pentecostal belief which was not denied by them. Excluding the said amount, the Court viewed that an attachment to secure Rs 15 lakhs would protect the daughters’ interests. The Court did not find it justified to pass orders prohibiting alienation or committing an act of waste related to scheduled property. It further directed the Family Court to withdraw the attachment over the scheduled property if the father furnishes security of Rs 15 lakhs by way of fixed deposit or other similar modes.
[X v. Y, 2023 SCC OnLine Ker 2262, Judgment dated 12-4-2023]
Judgment by: Justice P.G. Ajithkumar
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For Petitioners: Advocate Jacob Sebastian, Advocate K.V. Winston, Advocate Anu Jacob, Advocate Divya R. Nair;
For Respondent: Advocate Shyam S, Advocate N.K. Karnis.
