CourtKutchehry

Supreme Court: Paying for Daughter’s Marriage is a Father’s Duty, Orders ₹10 Lakh Contribution Despite Divorce

Court says parental responsibility continues beyond marital disputes and separation

Bench upholds divorce but directs husband to fund daughter’s wedding expenses as a ‘natural extension’ of duty

By Our Legal Reporter

New Delhi, September 12, 2025 — In a significant ruling that reinforces the principle of parental responsibility, the Supreme Court of India has held that meeting reasonable expenses for a daughter’s marriage is a natural extension of a father’s duty, regardless of marital disputes or separation from the child’s mother.

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta made the observation while upholding a divorce decree between a couple married in 1996, but also directing the husband to pay ₹10 lakh to his former wife towards the wedding expenses of their daughter, born in 1997.

Background of the Case

The couple, married on May 6, 1996, had two children — a daughter in 1997 and a son in 1999. Their relationship was marred by constant disputes, with the husband filing for divorce in 2009 on grounds of cruelty. The wife countered with allegations of mental and physical cruelty, and also filed a complaint under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.

Over the years, the litigation became prolonged and acrimonious. The Mahila Court initially ordered the husband to pay monthly maintenance, later enhanced to ₹7,500. In 2013, the husband sought DNA testing of both children, claiming they were not his — a plea that was dismissed.

In 2019, the Family Court granted divorce on the ground of cruelty, which the Delhi High Court upheld in 2023, noting that the couple had been living separately since 2009 and that repeated police complaints by the wife amounted to cruelty.

The Limited Appeal

Before the Supreme Court, the wife did not challenge the divorce itself. Instead, she confined her appeal to seeking ₹10 lakh from her former husband to meet the marriage expenses of their daughter. She argued that she had raised both children largely on her own and that the father had sufficient means, including income from an aquarium business, rental properties, and family contributions.

The husband denied having any income and opposed the payment.

Supreme Court’s Observations

The bench noted that parental duties do not end with divorce and that a father’s obligation to support his children — including contributing to their marriage expenses — is a “modest obligation” and a “natural extension” of his role as a parent.

“We are of the considered view that the respondent can and should contribute ₹10,00,000 for this purpose, as meeting the reasonable expenses of his daughter’s marriage is a natural extension of his duty as a parent, irrespective of differences with the spouse,” the Court said.

The judges emphasised that the wife had been reasonable in limiting her claim to this amount, despite the long and bitter litigation.

Final Directions

The Supreme Court upheld the divorce but made it conditional upon the husband paying ₹10 lakh to the wife on or before October 15, 2025. If he fails to do so, the Court warned, the appeals will be revived for further consideration.

The Court also dismissed the husband’s claims of having no income, stating that the record showed he was capable of making the payment.

Legal Significance

This ruling is important for several reasons:

Affirms continuing parental responsibility: Even after divorce, parents remain obligated to support their children in significant life events.
Sets a precedent for marriage expenses: While maintenance and education costs are commonly litigated, this judgment explicitly recognises marriage expenses as part of a father’s duty.
Balances fairness and finality: The Court respected the finality of the divorce while ensuring the daughter’s needs were met.

Acrimonious Litigation History

The case also highlights the emotional and financial toll of prolonged matrimonial disputes. Over nearly 16 years of litigation:

The wife pursued domestic violence claims, eventually securing ₹7 lakh in compensation from the High Court.
The husband’s repeated challenges, including a special leave petition to the Supreme Court, were dismissed.
Mediation attempts failed, with both sides maintaining deep mistrust.

The Court noted that such disputes often overshadow the welfare of children, and its intervention in this case was aimed at ensuring the daughter’s future was not compromised.

Broader Social Context

In India, marriage expenses — especially for daughters — are often a significant financial undertaking for families. While the law does not mandate a specific amount, courts have in the past recognised that reasonable contributions from both parents are part of their duty.

This judgment reinforces that parental responsibility is not contingent on marital harmony. It also sends a message that personal disputes should not deprive children of financial and emotional support from either parent.

Expert Reactions

Family law experts have welcomed the ruling. Advocate Meera Sharma said, “This is a progressive step. The Court has acknowledged that a father’s duty extends beyond basic maintenance and education. Marriage is a culturally significant milestone, and reasonable expenses for it should be shared.”

Others noted that the judgment could influence future divorce settlements, with courts more willing to include specific provisions for marriage expenses.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in Geeta @ Reeta Mishra vs. Ajay Kumar Mishra is a landmark in family law, reaffirming that parental duties transcend marital breakdowns. By directing the father to contribute to his daughter’s wedding, the Court has underscored that children’s rights and needs remain paramount, even in the aftermath of bitter disputes.

As Justice Nath observed, “It is a father’s duty to provide for his children, and meeting the marriage expenses of his daughter is a modest obligation.” This principle, now backed by the country’s highest court, could shape the way Indian courts approach similar cases in the future.

ALSO READ POPULAR ARTICLES

Supreme Court Orders All Bail Pleas to Be Decided Within Two Months to Protect Personal Liberty

Plaint Cannot Be Rejected If Even One Relief Is Maintainable

SC Orders SIT with Hindu-Muslim Officers to Probe 2023 Akola Clashes

Supreme Court Acquits Uttarakhand Doctor Under Right of Private Defence

Supreme Court Overturns Death Sentence in POCSO Case, Clarifies ‘Rarest of Rare’ Doctrine

Supreme Court Refuses Plea to Cancel India-Pakistan Asia Cup 2025 Match