A man cannot cite the cost of a son’s education as a reason to provide lower financial support to his daughter, the Madhya Pradesh High Court has said in a judgement that could have implications for maintenance disputes across India.
The court increased the maintenance awarded to a government school teacher’s wife and minor daughter, observing that a husband cannot discriminate between the educational expenses of a son and a daughter. The bench increased the wife’s monthly maintenance from Rs 5,000 to Rs 7,500 and the daughter’s from Rs 2,000 to Rs 10,000, taking into account the father’s income, rising living costs and the daughter’s educational needs.
The case arose after the husband argued that he was already spending heavily on the technical education of his adult son, who was pursuing a BTech degree. The court, however, held that such expenditure could not be used to restrict reasonable maintenance and educational support for a minor daughter.
Why the ruling matters
The judgement highlights a principle that family law experts say courts have increasingly emphasised in recent years: Maintenance is not limited to food and shelter. It also covers education, healthcare and the ability to live with dignity.
“Voluntary expenditure on the technical education of a major son cannot justify restricting reasonable maintenance and educational support to a minor daughter,” said Aditya Chopra, managing partner at legal firm The Victoriam Legalis. According to Chopra, the court has reaffirmed that educational needs of a dependent child form an essential part of maintenance and cannot be treated as a discretionary expense.
Anuj Goyal, senior associate, 3Sixty Law Group, said the ruling makes it clear that while a parent may voluntarily spend more on one child, such a decision cannot override the statutory obligation to maintain another child. “Courts will typically refuse to allow one child’s education to be prioritised at the expense of another child’s right to maintenance and education,” he said.
Education expenses are not separate from maintenance
A common argument in maintenance disputes is that a parent is already paying school fees, tuition or other educational expenses and therefore should pay lower maintenance.
Legal experts say courts generally reject that reasoning.
“Maintenance is a personal statutory duty, and educational expenses form part of child maintenance rather than a separate concession,” said Goyal. Unless a court specifically allows an adjustment, a parent cannot unilaterally deduct educational expenses from court-ordered maintenance, he added.
Devishi Gupta, associate, SKV Law Offices, explained that a child’s needs extend far beyond tuition fees. Even when school fees are being paid directly, there are expenses related to food, transport, healthcare, books, stationery, clothing and day-to-day care.
“Maintenance is not charity or generosity; it is a legal obligation rooted in dignity, equality and the welfare of the child,” Gupta said.
K Sai Teja, advocate, Supreme Court of India, echoed this view, noting that educational expenditure is only one component of maintenance. Payment of school fees alone does not absolve a parent from providing broader financial support covering everyday living expenses.
How courts calculate maintenance today
Maintenance awards are no longer determined solely on the basis of salary.
According to Goyal, courts increasingly assess actual income, earning capacity, lifestyle, educational costs, inflation and genuine liabilities before deciding the amount payable.
Reema Bali, chief executive officer, Alpha Partners, said courts usually undertake a cumulative assessment of a family’s finances. Salary remains important, but judges also consider assets, lifestyle, household expenses, the standard of living enjoyed during the marriage, educational costs and the impact of inflation.
Tushar Kumar, advocate, Supreme Court of India, said modern maintenance jurisprudence, particularly after the Supreme Court’s ruling in Rajnesh v. Neha, has shifted towards a holistic assessment. Courts now look beyond payslips and examine investments, assets, expenditure patterns and overall financial capacity.
Gupta noted that maintenance is intended to provide dignity and stability rather than mere survival. For children, this includes support for education, healthcare, digital access, extracurricular activities and other developmental needs.
A wider message on gender equality
The ruling also carries significance beyond maintenance calculations.
Gupta said the judgement recognises that a daughter’s education and upbringing cannot be treated as secondary to a son’s. She pointed out that the court’s approach aligns with constitutional principles of equality and non-discrimination.
Similarly, Teja said courts consistently view maintenance through the lens of welfare, equality and dignity, with every child entitled to equal parental care and opportunity.
The order highlights that spending heavily on one child’s education does not reduce a parent’s responsibility towards another child. Courts are likely to examine whether all dependants are receiving fair support consistent with the parent’s means, rather than accepting claims based solely on selected expenses.
Source link
#Father #favour #son #daughter #maintenance #education
