The Delhi High Court has delivered a significant judgment in a unique case involving PPF fund ownership between a father and daughter. According to reports from Mint and Business Standard, the court ruled on August 3, 2026, that a father cannot withdraw funds from his daughter's PPF account for maintenance payments. Justice Neena Bansal Krishna's bench upheld the district court's judgment, stating that a father can only hold the PPF account as a guardian and the daughter is entitled to receive the funds made in her name. The court dismissed a Regular First Appeal filed by the father, maintaining that the obligation to maintain a child is an independent legal responsibility that cannot be set off against an investment made in the child's name.
The case involves Sudhir Kawatra, who opened a PPF account for his daughter Shamli Kawatra in 1999. As reported by Mint and Business Standard, Sudhir withdrew the entire corpus of ₹8,13,853.79 in 2016 and closed the account before Shamli could claim funds on maturity. When Shamli approached the bank on PPF maturity in 2017, she found that the account no longer existed. The father had been disbursing maintenance payments of nearly ₹6 lakh towards his daughter's well-being, citing this as justification for the withdrawal. The father also contended that he had paid ₹35,000 per month to his wife, which was being utilized by Shamli, and argued these amounts should be adjusted against the PPF sum.
The court's decision establishes important legal principles regarding PPF fund ownership and maintenance obligations. According to Bar and Bench and Business Standard, the court noted that maintenance is day-to-day expenditure in child upbringing, which is an independent legal responsibility of parents. The court observed that marital discord between the parents could not justify the father using the child's investment to discharge his own maintenance liability. Legal experts emphasize that a natural guardian has a duty not only to look after a minor but also to protect the child's property and financial interests. As Charmi Khurana from PSL Advocates & Solicitors noted, "Where a guardian opens, contributes to, operates or otherwise controls an investment made in the name of the minor, the investment is held for the benefit of the child and not for the personal benefit of the guardian."
The court's ruling provides significant relief for daughters in similar situations. As reported by Mint and Business Standard, the father must return the entire PPF corpus along with 8 percent interest to his daughter. The judgment establishes that a daughter cannot be denied her right to money to which she is lawfully entitled, regardless of marital disputes. The case highlights the importance of distinguishing between investments made for children's future and maintenance obligations that are separate legal responsibilities. The High Court dismissed the appeal along with all pending applications, maintaining that the father's independent legal obligation to pay maintenance cannot be adjusted against his daughter's PPF funds. This ruling could set a precedent regarding parental financial obligations and child welfare in similar cases.
