Daughter sues father for withdrawing money from her PPF fund, Delhi High Court orders return of entire corpus
A peculiar incident relating to a conflict between a father and daughter over ownership of PPF funds emerged recently. A daughter sued her father for deliberately withdrawing all funds from her PPF account and claimed that he attempted to create financial strain on her mother.
The father identified as Sudhir Kawatra had opened a Provident Fund (PPF) account in the1999 for his daughter Shamli Kawatra. However, Sudhir Kawatra withdrew the entire corpus of over ₹8 lakh in 2016 and closed the account before Shamli could claim funds on maturity. When Shamli approached the bank on PPF maturity in 2017, she was disturbed to find that the account no longer existed.
Aggrieved by her father’s move she moved court, accusing her father of falsely withdrawing the amount on the pretext of his daughter’s education and well-being, citing Sudhir’s undertaking given to the bank. Shamli, who is now a college student, alleged that she finds it financially difficult to fund her educational expenses. According to Shamli, her parents had separated due to marital discord following which she started living with her mother.
This matter was first taken up in a district court which directed the father to not only return the entire corpus to his daughter but also pay 8 percent of interest. Dissatisfied with the district court judgement, the father then approached the Delhi High Court to challenge the order.
The Delhi High Court bench presided by Justice Neena Bansal Krishna delivered a judgment on 3 August, bringing major relief for the daughter. The court upheld district court judgement and ruled that a father cannot use the amount invested for his daughter’s education towards fulfilling his individual legal obligations of paying maintenance to his daughter and estranged wife.
What did Delhi High Court judgement say
The court noted that the father, who had opened the investment account, can only hold it as a guardian and his daughter is entitled to receive the fund made in her name. The father contended his right over PPF corpus and reasoned that he had been disbursing the maintenance towards her daughter’s well-being which totaled to nearly ₹6 lakh. He also cited Uttarakhand High Court order instructing him to pay additional maintenance for his wife. He alleged that this amount was also being used by their daughter.
According to the ruling, the father cannot use PPF investment amount to meet his legal obligations of paying maintenance. “Being the investment in the name of the child, she was entitled to receive the amount. 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,” Bar and Bench quoted the Court’s order.
As per the judgement, a father’s responsibility to pay maintenance cannot be adjusted against the PPF amount. Moreover, a wife’s right to maintenance is an independent legal obligation. The Court concluded that a daughter cannot be denied her right to the money to which she is lawfully entitled.
“It would be significant to note that a parent during the childhood may make investment and create a corpus by putting savings annually, in some account, but essentially it is an investment to be utilized in future. However, the maintenance is the day-today 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 as reported by Bar and Bench.
