Educational Expenses Of Son No Ground To Deny Adequate Maintenance To Daughter: MP High Court

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that a father cannot justify inadequate maintenance to his wife and minor daughter on the ground that he is spending heavily on the education of his major son, observing that maintenance is not charity but a legal right that includes the right to live with dignity.

Justice Gajendra Singh passed the order while partly allowing a criminal revision petition filed by petitioner wife and her minor daughter, who had challenged a Family Court order awarding them maintenance of Rs.5,000 and Rs.2,000 per month respectively. The High Court enhanced the amounts to Rs.7,500 for the wife and Rs.10,000 for the daughter, payable from the date of the original application.

The dispute arose from an application filed under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the Family Court at Neemuch. The wife alleged that her husband had subjected her to cruelty, neglected her and their daughter, and failed to provide adequate financial support despite having sufficient means. She claimed that he earned a substantial monthly income and also had access to income from immovable properties.

The husband denied the allegations and argued that he was already spending significant amounts on the education of their elder son, who was pursuing a B.Tech degree in Jaipur. He contended that he was bearing annual educational expenses of over Rs.5 lakh and was also providing monthly pocket money to the son. He further submitted that he was responsible for maintaining his aged parents and that no case for enhancement of maintenance was made out.

Appearing for the petitioners, advocate Bhuwneshwari Mishra sought enhancement of the maintenance amount. The plea was opposed by advocate Nilesh Manore on behalf of the respondent husband.

Examining the material on record, the High Court noted that the respondent was employed as a Middle Teacher in government service. His salary records showed a gross monthly income of Rs.81,130 and a net monthly income of Rs.72,915. The Court also took note of evidence showing that the minor daughter was studying in a convent school in Neemuch and that the husband had only paid the school fees reflected in the admission records.

The Court found that the Family Court had failed to adequately consider the educational and personal needs of the daughter while determining maintenance. It observed that the husband could not rely on expenses incurred for the education of his son to reduce his legal obligations towards his wife and daughter.

In a significant observation, the Court said, “Children pursuing school education cannot be left at the mercy of the parents.” It further held that if a husband voluntarily pays educational expenses, such payments do not dilute his statutory duty to maintain his dependants.

Rejecting the argument that expenditure on the son's technical education justified lower maintenance, the Court observed, “The wife and daughter of a government servant cannot be compelled to survive merely on the mercy of the husband.” The judgment added that the respondent could not be allowed to discriminate between the educational needs of his son and daughter.

Emphasising the welfare of the child, the Court stated, “The minor daughter deserves priority consideration over the major son.” It also reiterated that the expression “maintenance” is not confined to bare survival and “includes the right to live with dignity.”

Taking into account the husband's income, the increasing cost of living, and the educational requirements of the daughter, the Court concluded that the maintenance awarded by the Family Court was inadequate and required enhancement. Accordingly, it increased the monthly maintenance payable to both petitioners and directed that the amount already deposited be adjusted against the revised liability.

Case Title: Madhu and Others v. Hemendra Kumar

Date of Order: May 29, 2026

Bench: Justice Gajendra Singh