Cuttack, Sept 16: The Orissa High Court has dismissed a husband’s plea to stop paying maintenance to his estranged wife and their adult daughter, underscoring that a father’s duty does not end when a daughter turns 18. Justice G. Satapathy, delivering judgment on Monday, confirmed the Family Court order directing G. Debendra Rao to continue paying ₹5,000 each per month to his first wife G. Puspa Prabha Rao and their daughter.
Background
Debendra and Puspa married in 2001 and have a daughter. Trouble began with dowry-related disputes, leading to separation in 2004. Debendra later obtained an ex-parte divorce, while Puspa pursued maintenance under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC). The Family Court in Bargarh awarded monthly maintenance of ₹10,000 in 2019. Debendra, an advocate, challenged this, claiming his wife earned enough as a lawyer and that their now-adult daughter was no longer entitled to support.
Read also: Supreme Court Reduces Laxman Jangde’s Sentence, Rules No Proof of Rape or Penetrative Assault
Court’s Observations
Justice Satapathy rejected these arguments after examining income records, legal precedents, and the couple’s circumstances. “A father is bound to maintain his unmarried daughter even after she attains majority, if she cannot sustain herself,” the bench observed, invoking Section 20(3) of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act (HAMA).
The judge noted Debendra’s own admission of a healthy income and assets, including land and tax filings showing over ₹6 lakh annual earnings. By contrast, Puspa’s actual income from occasional legal work was unproven. “It may so happen that a person may be enrolled as an Advocate, but he or she may not have engagement for days, months and years together,” the court remarked, dismissing claims of her financial independence.
Read also: Supreme Court Pulls Up Advocate Over 1971 Sale Deed FIR, Protects 71-Year-Old Woman from Arrest
On the question of desertion, the bench pointed out that Debendra had remarried, giving Puspa valid reason to live apart. “When a husband marries another woman, the wife’s refusal to cohabit is justified,” Justice Satapathy said.
Decision
Concluding that the Family Court’s assessment was fair and that ₹5,000 each per month was not excessive, the High Court refused to interfere. “The impugned order calls for no interference by this Court,” the judge ruled, confirming the maintenance award until the daughter marries. The revision petition was dismissed with no order as to costs.
Case Title: G. Debendra Rao v. G. Puspa Prabha Rao & Another
Case Number: RPFAM No. 18 of 2021
Date of Judgment: 16 September 2025