Father Can't Discriminate Between Educational Expenses Of Son And Daughter: Madhya Pradesh High Court
The Madhya Pradesh High Court, while allowing a minor daughter's plea for enhancement of maintenance, observed that the father could not be permitted to discriminate between the educational expenses of the son and the daughter. The bench of Justice Gajendra Singh highlighted;"The respondent cannot be permitted to discriminate between the educational expenses of the son and daughter. If...
The Madhya Pradesh High Court, while allowing a minor daughter's plea for enhancement of maintenance, observed that the father could not be permitted to discriminate between the educational expenses of the son and the daughter.
The bench of Justice Gajendra Singh highlighted;
"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 wife and minor daughter (petitioners) filed a criminal revision seeking enhancement of the maintenance passed by the Family Court on August 11, 2025, wherein the wife was awarded ₹5,000, and the minor daughter was awarded ₹2,000 per month.
Per the facts, the couple solemnised the marriage in December 2001 per Hindu Rites and customs. Out of th wedlock, they had two children, an elder son who has attained majority and a minor daughter who was still residing with the wife.
The petitioners had filed an application under Section 125 CrPC in 2024, alleging cruelty and economic exploitation by the father/husband (respondent). The respondent was claimed to have been earning approximately ₹80,000 per month and also possessing immovable properties yielding an annual income of around ₹15,00,000.
The counsel for the respondent argued that he was taking care of the educational expenses of their elder son, who was pursuing a B Tech. It was further claimed that he was also paying the medical expenses of his wife, as she suffered from a heart ailment requiring substantial expenditure on treatment.
The Family Court, upon examination of the evidence, awarded maintenance to the wife and minor daughter (the petitioners). However, upon noting that the respondent was maintaining his aged parents and was making partial arrangements for maintenance, it granted a lesser amount than was pleaded by the petitioners.
The court noted that the minor daughter was studying in class 9, and except for the school fees, the respondent did not pay for any other educational or personal expenses.
The bench emphasizing that children pursuing school education cannot be left at the mercy of their parents. Therefore, the court held that if the respondent was voluntarily paying the educational expenses of his son, he cannot "dilute his statutory obligation to maintain his wife and minor daughter".
The bench further noted that the Family Court ignored that the respondent's father has an income source from agricultural land and is also a pensioner.
Additionally, the bench remarked that the husband/respondent cannot be permitted to discriminate between educational expenses of the son and the daughter.
The bench emphasized, "The minor daughter deserves priority consideration over the major son. The expression “maintenance” includes the right to live with dignity".
Therefore, the bench partially allowed the revision, enhancing the wife's maintenance to ₹7,500 and the minor daughter's maintenance to ₹10,000 per month.
Case Title: Madhu v Hemendra Kumar, CRR-4655-2025
For Petitioners: Advocate Bhuwneshwari Mishra
For Respodent: Advocate Nilesh Manore