Archive · 10 Aug 2026
Delhi High Court orders father to return daughter's PPF corpus
A long time ago, a father opened a special savings account for his daughter.
The account is called a Public Provident Fund, and it was meant to grow money over many years.
By 2016, the account had more than eight lakh rupees in it.
In that year, the father took out all the money and closed the account.
When the daughter went to the bank in 2017, she was upset to find that the account no longer existed.
She needed that money to pay for her college education.
So she took her father to court to get her money back.
A judge said the father must return the full amount plus interest.
The father argued that he had already spent money on taking care of his daughter and wife.
The court said that does not matter, because the money legally belongs to the daughter.
Sudhir Kawatra withdrew over ₹8 lakh from his daughter Shamli Kawatra's Public Provident Fund (PPF) account and closed it in 2016.
The Delhi High Court upheld a district court order directing the father to return the entire corpus plus 8 percent interest.
Justice Neena Bansal Krishna delivered the judgment on 3 August.
The court ruled that a parent holds a child's PPF funds only as a guardian and cannot use them to offset maintenance obligations.
Shamli, now a college student, said she struggles to fund her education after her parents separated.
- Who
- Shamli Kawatra, her father Sudhir Kawatra, and a Delhi High Court bench led by Justice Neena Bansal Krishna
- What
- The Delhi High Court ruled that the father must return the entire PPF corpus he withdrew from his daughter's account, upholding the district court's order
- When
- The account was opened in 1999, the funds were withdrawn in 2016, and the judgment was delivered on 3 August
- Where
- Delhi, at the Delhi High Court
- Why
- Because money invested in a child's name is held by the parent only as a guardian and cannot be used to offset the parent's legal maintenance obligations
Daughter's position
Father's position
Purpose of the withdrawal
Daughter's position
The father falsely withdrew the money on the pretext of her education and well-being, leaving her unable to fund her college studies.
Father's position
The withdrawal was made for his daughter's education and well-being, and he had given an undertaking to the bank.
Credit for maintenance paid
Daughter's position
The money legally belongs to the daughter, and the father must return it; his maintenance duty is a separate obligation.
Father's position
He had already disbursed nearly ₹6 lakh toward the daughter's maintenance and was ordered by the Uttarakhand High Court to pay additional maintenance for his wife.
- Case type
- Dispute over a daughter's Public Provident Fund (PPF) corpus
- Parties
- Shamli Kawatra (daughter) v. Sudhir Kawatra (father)
- Amount withdrawn
- Over ₹8 lakh
- Account opened
- 1999
- Account closed
- 2016
- Interest ordered
- 8 percent
- Judgment date
- 3 August
- Court
- Delhi High Court (Justice Neena Bansal Krishna)
