Father's duty or moral choice? Court weighs in on adult kids'education cost

HC clarifies how long parents must financially support children, highlighting the line between legal duty and moral responsibility

When two youngsters, Rishita and Suchet Kapur, took their father to court seeking funds for their PhD and BTech studies, it struck a chord across middle-class India. The Himachal Pradesh High Court’s ruling, which came a few days ago, has reignited debate on how far a parent’s financial obligation extends once children become adults.

 

The court partly ruled in their favour, granting the son, Suchet -- who was a minor when the petition was filed-- maintenance of ~8,000 a month till he turned 18. The daughter, Rishita, however, was denied the claim as she was already an adult.

What the court said

The Bench of justices Vivek Singh Thakur and Sushil Kukreja held that under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (now Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita), a father’s legal duty to maintain a child ends when the child attains majority, unless the child is suffering from a physical or mental disability.

 

However, under Section 20(3) of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act (HAMA), 1956, an unmarried daughter unable to maintain herself from her own income or property can claim maintenance from her father, irrespective of age. The court also reminded that while legal duty may cease, a father’s moral obligation to support children’s education continues.

 

Experts break it down

B Shravanth Shanker, advocate-on-record, Supreme Court of India, says the ruling “has neither departed from settled law nor set any perilous precedent.” It applied the law “with measured precision,” granting relief only for the period the son remained

 

a minor.

 

Shanker explains that “the obligation of a father to support adult children rests solely in the realm of moral duty, not legal command.”

 

While the judgment reaffirmed that an unmarried daughter can claim maintenance under HAMA, he adds, “our social realities still often transition a woman’s financial dependence from father to husband, the journey toward true independence remains far from complete.”

 

He advises families to balance moral and financial expectations early on. “Prudent investments and long-term planning can pre-empt such dilemmas, fostering independence without eroding familial bonds.”

 

Legal distinctions and precedents

Shashank Agarwal, founder of Legum Solis, notes that the judgment “distinguishes between maintenance provisions under HAMA, the Hindu Marriage Act and the CrPC.”

 

He highlights a key precedent. “Payments made voluntarily by the father, even beyond legal entitlement, cannot be reclaimed from the children, it remains his moral duty, if not legal.”

 

For those seeking support

According to Alay Razvi, managing partner, Accord Juris, “A child may claim maintenance under Section 125 CrPC or Section 144 BNSS until 18, or longer only in case of disability.”

 

An unmarried daughter may invoke Section 20(3) HAMA to seek funds for education or marriage if she cannot support herself.

 

“Applicants must prove relationship, age, educational enrolment, and inability to self-maintain,” Razvi explains, adding that courts also consider a parent’s income and inflation when setting amounts.

 

The takeaway

 

The Kapur siblings’ case may not have rewritten the law, but it has sharpened public awareness of the fine line between legal entitlement and moral responsibility. For many Indian families, it’s a timely reminder that while courts can enforce maintenance, only empathy and financial foresight can prevent such disputes.