Introduction
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that a father cannot justify lower maintenance for his minor daughter on the ground that he is spending substantial amounts on the education of his major son. The Court observed that such an approach amounts to discrimination and is contrary to the legal obligation of a parent to maintain a minor child.
The decision came while allowing a revision petition filed by a wife and her minor daughter seeking enhancement of maintenance awarded by the Family Court.
Legal Issue
The principal issue before the Court was whether the educational expenses incurred by a father on his major son could be used as a ground to limit maintenance payable to his wife and minor daughter.
The Court also considered whether the amount awarded by the Family Court was sufficient to meet the educational and personal needs of the minor daughter.
Background
The parties were married in December 2001 according to Hindu rites and customs. They had two children, a son who had attained majority and was pursuing a B.Tech degree, and a minor daughter who was residing with her mother.
In 2024, the wife and daughter filed an application under Section 125 CrPC seeking maintenance. They alleged cruelty and economic neglect and contended that the husband was earning approximately ₹80,000 per month in addition to income from immovable properties.
The husband argued that he was already bearing the educational expenses of his son and was also spending money on the medical treatment of his wife, who suffered from a heart ailment. He further claimed that he had responsibilities towards his aged parents.
The Family Court awarded maintenance of ₹5,000 per month to the wife and ₹2,000 per month to the minor daughter. Dissatisfied with the quantum, the petitioners approached the High Court seeking enhancement.
Court’s Decision
The High Court partly allowed the revision petition and significantly enhanced the maintenance awarded to both the wife and the minor daughter.
Justice Gajendra Singh observed that the respondent could not be permitted to discriminate between the educational needs of his son and daughter. The Court noted that while the father was voluntarily paying for the technical education of his major son, he was not adequately contributing towards the educational and personal expenses of his minor daughter.
The Court found that the daughter, who was studying in Class IX, required financial support beyond payment of school fees. It emphasised that maintenance includes the right to live with dignity and covers educational and developmental needs.
The Bench further observed that the Family Court had overlooked the fact that the respondent’s father had independent sources of income from agricultural land and pension benefits. Therefore, the respondent could not rely on parental responsibilities as a reason to reduce maintenance payable to his wife and daughter.
Importantly, the Court held that a minor daughter deserves priority consideration over a major son when assessing maintenance obligations.
Conclusion
The judgment reinforces the principle that parents must provide equal support to both sons and daughters. The High Court made it clear that educational expenditure on one child cannot be used to justify neglecting the needs of another, particularly a minor daughter. The ruling also reiterates that maintenance is not limited to basic survival but extends to ensuring a dignified life and adequate educational opportunities.
Case Details
Case Title: Madhu v. Hemendra Kumar
Counsel for Petitioners: Bhuwneshwari Mishra
Counsel for Respondent: Nilesh Manore
Decision: Wife’s maintenance enhanced from ₹5,000 to ₹7,500 per month and minor daughter’s maintenance enhanced from ₹2,000 to ₹10,000 per month.
