The Delhi High Court has ruled that money invested in a Public Provident Fund (PPF) account in the name of a child belongs to the child after attaining majority and cannot be adjusted by a parent against their legal obligation to pay maintenance. Dismissing an appeal filed by a father, the Court upheld a decree directing him to return over ₹8.13 lakh to his daughter along with interest.
Background of the Case
The dispute arose after Shamli Kawatra filed a recovery suit against her father, Sudhir Kawatra, claiming that the amount lying in her PPF account had been withdrawn without being used for her benefit.
According to the case record, the PPF account had been opened by the father in 1999 while the daughter was a minor. After the account matured, the entire amount of ₹8,13,853.79 was withdrawn by the father. At the time of withdrawal, he furnished an undertaking to the bank stating that the money would be spent on his daughter's higher education and welfare.
The daughter later alleged that despite this undertaking, the amount was never used for her benefit. She approached the trial court seeking recovery of the withdrawn amount with interest.
Father's Stand
Before the High Court, the father argued that he had lawfully withdrawn the PPF amount after its maturity and had already spent substantial sums towards his daughter's maintenance under orders passed by the Family Court. He contended that these payments should be taken into account and that the dispute involved questions requiring a full trial rather than a decree based on admissions.
Court's Observations
Justice Neena Bansal Krishna observed that the case involved an important distinction between a parent's obligation to maintain a child and money invested in the child's name for future benefit.
The Court explained that maintenance represents the day-to-day responsibility of a parent, whereas investments made in a child's name create a separate financial corpus intended for that child's future.
The bench observed,
"Merely because of a marital discord, the investments cannot be used by the father towards the maintenance as it would simply amount to utilization of the child's money for the discharge of the legal responsibility of the father."
The Court further noted that although the father had contributed the money deposited in the PPF account, the investment had been created for the benefit of his daughter. Once she attained majority, she became entitled to receive the amount.
The bench observed,
"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."
Justice Krishna also held that maintenance paid pursuant to court orders could not be adjusted against the PPF amount because both rights were independent in law. Similarly, maintenance paid to the child's mother did not affect the daughter's entitlement to the money invested in her name.
Court's Decision
Finding no error in the trial court's reasoning, the Delhi High Court upheld the decree directing payment of ₹8,13,853.79 with 8% annual interest.
The Court concluded that the trial judge had rightly exercised powers under Order XII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure based on the father's admissions and dismissed the appeal along with all pending applications.
Case Details
Case Title: Sudhir Kawatra v. Shamli Kawatra
Case Number: RFA 285/2023
Judge: Justice Neena Bansal Krishna
Decision Date: 03 August 2026
