Bengaluru: The Karnataka High Court has upheld a family court's order that an unmarried woman is entitled to receive Rs 20,000 per month as maintenance as well as expenses for her marriage from her mother and elder sister.
However, the judge quashed the family court's order for similar maintenance to her brother, stating that as he had attained majority, he was not entitled to any such relief. The dispute involves the family of T Madaiah, who died while serving as an employee of the Mysuru Urban Development Authority (MUDA). His elder daughter, Darshini (34), was given a job in MUDA after his death on June 20, 2013. His wife, Mangalagowramma, worked as a headmistress at a government higher primary school until her retirement.
In 2019, Madaiah's second daughter, M Dhanushree (31), and son, Dhanush (29), filed a petition under Section 125 CrPC in the Mysuru family court, alleging that their mother and elder sister neglected to maintain them despite having sufficient income and means. The siblings argued that their elder sister, Darshini, gave an undertaking at the time of getting a compassionate job in place of their father that she would take responsibility for the family. They claimed that she had failed to keep that promise. According to them, she had married and moved to Tumakuru, thus neglecting them.
On September 27, 2021, the family court held that Dhanushree was entitled to monthly maintenance of Rs 20,000 until her marriage and Rs 10 lakh towards her marriage expenses from her mother, and monthly maintenance of Rs 7,000 per month until her marriage and Rs 2 lakh towards her marriage expenses from her elder sister. The family court also held that Dhanush was entitled to Rs 5 lakh from his mother and Rs 2 lakh from his sister. Another Rs 50,000 was to be jointly paid towards their educational expenses.
Mangalagowramma and Darshini challenged the court's order, arguing that both Dhanush and Dhanushree had attained majority and hence were not entitled to any maintenance. In his order issued on April 24, Justice Manmadha Rao said Dhanush had completed his education and also attained majority, hence he was not entitled to maintenance. Regarding Dhanushree, the judge said that she was unmarried and, therefore, entitled to maintenance until her marriage and also the marriage expenses. Justice Rao held that the maintenance awarded by the family court to Dhanushree was just and reasonable.
