Father Cannot Discriminate Between Son and Daughter’s Education: MP High Court

The High Court of Madhya Pradesh has ruled that a government employee cannot prioritize the professional education of a major son while leaving a minor daughter and wife to survive on a meager maintenance amount. Justice Gajendra Singh, while exercising jurisdiction under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act, 1984, emphasized that children cannot be left at the mercy of their parents and that the statutory right to maintenance inherently includes the right to live with dignity.

Maintenance Enhancement: Equality in Educational Support

The High Court observed that a father's voluntary contribution toward school fees does not absolve him of his statutory obligations. The bench noted that while the respondent-husband was financing his son's B.Tech education with substantial annual expenditures, he was simultaneously resisting fair maintenance for his minor daughter. The Court highlighted that discrimination in providing educational support between a son and a daughter is legally untenable, especially when the husband is a government servant with a stable income.

Prioritizing Minor Daughter’s Needs

The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "The wife and daughter of a government servant cannot be compelled to survive merely on the mercy of the husband. The respondent cannot be permitted to discriminate between the educational expenses of the son and daughter. If the respondent is bearing substantial expenses for the technical education of the major son, the same cannot be a ground to restrict reasonable maintenance and educational support to the minor daughter. The minor daughter deserves priority consideration over the major son. The expression 'maintenance' includes the right to live with dignity."

Reviewing the financial status, the Court found that the husband, a middle school teacher, had a gross salary of over Rs. 81,000. Despite his responsibilities toward aged parents, the Court found the previous maintenance amount of Rs. 2,000 for the daughter to be significantly inadequate given the rising cost of living and her educational requirements in Class XI. Consequently, the High Court directed an enhancement of the maintenance amounts to ensure a dignified life for the petitioners.

The Court has the following directions: "The amount of maintenance awarded by the trial Court is enhanced from Rs.5,000/- to Rs.7,500/- (Rupees Seven Thousand Five Hundred Only) per month in favour of petitioner No.1/wife and from Rs.2,000/- to Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) per month in favour of petitioner No.2/minor daughter, payable from the date of application, i.e., 22.02.2024. The amount already deposited shall be adjusted accordingly. A copy of this order be sent to the learned Family Court concerned for information and compliance."

Background:

The case originated from a maintenance application filed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. by the wife and minor daughter, alleging cruelty and economic neglect. The Family Court at Neemuch had initially awarded Rs. 5,000 to the wife and Rs. 2,000 to the daughter. The respondent-husband contested the claim for enhancement, arguing that he was already spending over Rs. 5.45 lakh annually on his elder son's B.Tech degree and that the wife had deprived him of conjugal rights. He also cited his status as a physically challenged individual.

However, the High Court scrutinized the respondent's pay slips and the educational needs of the minor daughter enrolled in a Carmel Convent school. The Court concluded that the Family Court had failed to account for the husband's full financial capacity, including agricultural income, and the disparity in the treatment of the two children. The revision petition was partly allowed, resulting in a substantial increase in the monthly maintenance for the minor daughter.

Case Details:
Case No.: CRIMINAL REVISION No. 4655 of 2025
Case Title: MADHU AND OTHERS Versus HEMENDRA KUMAR
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): Shri Bhuwneshwari Mishra - learned counsel for the petitioners.
For the Respondent(s): Shri Nilesh Manore - learned counsel for the respondent.

Source: 2026 CaseBase(MP) 37