Father Can't Utilise Child's PPF Funds To Offset His Maintenance Obligation: Delhi HC
Maintenance is an independent legal responsibility of a parent and cannot be adjusted against investments made in a child's name, the Court held while dismissing a father's appeal against a decree directing him to return over ₹8.13 lakh withdrawn from his daughter's PPF account
Delhi High Court held that a father cannot use money from his daughter's PPF account to offset his legal obligation to pay maintenance, directing repayment of over ₹8.13 lakh with interest
The Delhi High Court has held that a father cannot utilise funds invested in his child's Public Provident Fund (PPF) account to offset his independent legal obligation to maintain the child, observing that maintenance is a parent's day-to-day legal responsibility and cannot be discharged using the money to which the child is entitled upon attaining majority.
Dismissing an appeal filed by a father against a decree directing him to repay over ₹8.13 lakh withdrawn from his daughter's PPF account, Justice Neena Bansal Krishna held that although the father had lawfully closed the matured PPF account as the guardian, he could not appropriate the money towards maintenance paid under a Family Court order because the corpus belonged to the child and had been created for her benefit.
"The maintenance is the day-to-day expenditure in the up-bringing of the child which is the independent legal responsibility of a parent. 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 observed.
The dispute arose from a suit filed by the respondent daughter seeking recovery of ₹8,13,853.79, the amount lying in a PPF account opened by her father in her name during her minority.
According to the daughter, after the account matured in March 2016, her father closed it in October 2016 and withdrew the entire amount without informing her, despite furnishing an undertaking to the bank that the money would be used for her higher education and well-being.
She claimed that the funds were never utilised for her benefit and instead sought recovery of the amount with interest.
The father admitted withdrawing the amount but contended that he was entitled to close the account under the PPF scheme. He further argued that he had already paid approximately ₹6 lakh towards the daughter's maintenance pursuant to orders passed by the Family Court, Dehradun, and that these payments should be adjusted against the money withdrawn from the PPF account.
He also relied upon the maintenance paid to his wife under orders of the Uttarakhand High Court to contend that the daughter had already benefited from those payments.
The trial court rejected the defence and decreed the suit, holding that maintenance paid under court orders could not be adjusted against the daughter's PPF funds because maintaining one's child is an independent legal obligation.
It consequently directed payment of the entire amount withdrawn, together with interest.
Dealing with the father’s First Appeal under Section 96 read with Order XLI of the CPC, the High Court affirmed the view of the trial court.
Justice Bansal identified the central issue as whether a father is entitled to utilise investments made in a child's name to pay maintenance pursuant to a court order.
The Court answered the question in the negative, observing that while parents may create a financial corpus for their children through long-term investments, such investments are intended for the child's future and are distinct from the parent's continuing obligation to bear day-to-day maintenance expenses.
The Court further noted that although the PPF account had been closed in accordance with the applicable law, the crucial question was who was entitled to the money after withdrawal.
It held that since the investment stood in the daughter's name, she became entitled to the corpus upon attaining majority. "The father may have taken the money to which the Plaintiff was entitled, but it was only in the fiduciary capacity, as a Guardian, but cannot be utilized by the father to off-set his responsibility of maintenance, towards the child" the Court said.
Rejecting the father's plea for adjustment of maintenance payments, the Court held that the maintenance paid under the Family Court's order merely reflected his legal responsibility towards his daughter and could not diminish her entitlement to the PPF corpus.
Likewise, the maintenance paid to the daughter's mother was an independent legal right of the wife and could not defeat the daughter's claim over money lawfully belonging to her.
“In the present case, though savings in PPF Account were made by the Defendant / Plaintiff‟s father, but the same were for the benefit of the Plaintiff / Defendant‟s daughter, to which she was entitled after attaining the age of majority, i.e. 18 years on 13.11.2016. 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” it said.
Finding no infirmity in the trial court's decree, the High Court upheld the direction requiring the father to pay the entire sum of ₹8,13,853.79 with interest at 8% per annum and dismissed the appeal.
Case Title- Sudhir Kawatra v. Shamli Kawatra
Bench: Justice Neena Bansal Krishna
Judgment Date: August 3, 2026