“The right of an unmarried daughter to get reasonable expenses concerning her marriage from her father cannot have a religious shade,” the Court asserted.
The Kerala High Court recently ruled that every unmarried daughter, regardless of her religion, is entitled to receive reasonable wedding expenses from her father.
Justices Anil K. Narendran and PG Ajithkumar opined that this right cannot be imbued with any religious overtones.
“The right of an unmarried daughter to get reasonable expenses concerning her marriage from her father cannot have a religious shade. It is a right of every unmarried daughter irrespective of her religion. There cannot be a discriminatory exclusion from claiming such a right based on one’s religion,” the judgment stated.
The Kerala High Court’s decision, which establishes that an unmarried daughter, regardless of religion, has the right to receive marriage expenses from her father, is based on two petitions filed by the respondent’s daughters.
The daughters sought a decree that placed a lien on their father’s property for 45.92 lakh, which covered the costs of their weddings, and a temporary restraining order preventing the father from selling the property, which they claimed had been obtained with the assistance of their mother and her family.
The family court had determined that a 7.5 lakh attachment was sufficient to secure the petitioners’ interests since they were only entitled to the minimum required expenses for the wedding. The petitioners contested the family court’s decision before the High Court, stating that the status of the parties had not been considered in determining the necessary amount.
The father argued that the daughters, who are Pentacost Christians, would not incur typical wedding expenses associated with ornaments.
The High Court focused on whether there is a legal provision that allows Christian daughters to claim marriage expenses from their father’s immovable property or its profits. The Court determined that every father, regardless of religion, has an obligation to pay expenses related to his daughter’s wedding, relying on a previous ruling in the case of Ismayil v. Fathima & Anr.
“We unhesitatingly agree with that view,” the Court said.
The High Court referred to Section 39 of the Transfer of Property Act, which states that a person with a right to maintenance, a provision for advancement, or a provision for marriage from the profits of immovable property can enforce the claim against the immovable property of the party obligated to pay.
The Court held that the petitioner-daughters have the right to place a lien on their father’s real property. However, the Court also stated that there was no need for equitable injunctive relief after the property was seized.
After considering the pleadings and other evidence, the court determined that a 15 lakh attachment was sufficient to secure the interests of the petitioners.
