Delhi High Court Orders Father To Return INR 8.13 Lakh PPF Money to Daughter; Here's Why
The Delhi High Court ruled that a father cannot use a daughter’s PPF funds to cover his own maintenance obligations. The court clarified that parents act only as fiduciaries for children's investments and ordered the father to return the entire matured corpus of over INR 8.13 lakh to his daughter, along with 8 per cent interest, as the funds legally belong to the child upon reaching majority.
In a notable ruling regarding family finances and investments, the Delhi High Court has held that money invested in a Public Provident Fund (PPF) account in a child's name legally belongs to the child upon attaining majority. The court ruled that parents cannot utilise a child's investment corpus to discharge their independent legal obligations to pay maintenance.
The judgment delivered by Justice Neena Bansal Krishna dismissed an appeal filed by a father challenging a lower court's decree, reports Bar and Bench. The court ordered the father to return the entire matured PPF corpus of over INR 8.13 lakh to his daughter, along with an annual interest of 8 per cent. CJP’s Saurav Das Says ‘Hands Off Our Jantar Mantar’ After Delhi High Court's Protest Site Remarks.
Background of the Dispute
The case stems from a PPF account opened by Sudhir Kawatra for his minor daughter, Shamli Kawatra, in 1999. Following marital discord between the parents, the mother and daughter began living separately. When the account matured, and the daughter approached the bank to claim the funds, she discovered that her father had withdrawn the entire corpus of INR 8,13,853.79 in 2016 and closed the account. Although the father submitted an undertaking to the bank stating the funds would be used for his daughter's education and welfare, the daughter subsequently filed a recovery suit, stating she faced financial strain for her education. A district court initially ruled in favour of the daughter, directing the father to return the full amount with interest. Dissatisfied with the decision, the father approached the Delhi High Court.
Court's Observations and Legal Principles
Before the High Court, the father argued that the withdrawn money had effectively gone toward his daughter's well-being and maintenance, citing separate maintenance payments ordered by a family court and the Uttarakhand High Court. The High Court rejected the attempt to offset maintenance obligations against the child's investment savings, drawing a sharp distinction between long-term financial investments and daily upbringing expenses.
“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,” the court stated in its order. The bench further emphasised that a parent's duty to provide maintenance is an independent legal obligation arising from day-to-day upbringing responsibilities. Dabur Gets Delhi High Court Relief As FSSAI Ban on ‘100% Pure’ and ‘100% Natural’ Claims Is Stayed.
“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. Finding no infirmity in the trial court's reasoning, the Delhi High Court upheld the recovery decree in its entirety and dismissed the father's appeal.
(The above story first appeared on LatestLY on Aug 10, 2026 05:04 PM IST. For more news and updates on politics, world, sports, entertainment and lifestyle, log on to our website latestly.com).
