Father Responsible To Pay Child's School Fees Apart From Interim Maintenance Particularly When Wife Unemployed At His Insistence: Karnataka HC
The Karnataka High Court has said that payment of child's school fees by a father would not mean that he would not pay maintenance amount to the child on account of him living separately with his mother.A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna rejected the petition filed by a husband challenging an order of the trial court directing him to pay Rs 5,000 each to wife and child as...
The Karnataka High Court has said that payment of child's school fees by a father would not mean that he would not pay maintenance amount to the child on account of him living separately with his mother.
A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna rejected the petition filed by a husband challenging an order of the trial court directing him to pay Rs 5,000 each to wife and child as interim maintenance.
The husband claimed he is earning Rs.30,000 per month and works as an Assistant Professor in a private educational institution and payment of Rs.5,000 each to the wife and child would be onerous on him. The entire school fee of the child is being paid by the petitioner from the year 2022 onwards. Since the wife is employed there is no necessity for the wife to seek maintenance.
The wife countered the plea by submitting that after the birth of the child at the insistence of the petitioner she has quit the job. The amount that is ordered is not so exorbitant that the petitioner cannot pay.
The Court, considering that the wife has quit the job to take care of the child at the insistence of the husband said, “It is the duty of the husband to maintain the wife and the child and not to wash off his hands from the responsibility of maintenance.”
Further it said,
“The payment of the fees would not mean that the husband would not pay maintenance for the child, for living. Payment of the fees is all together different responsibilities apart from the husband paying maintenance to maintain a child and the wife.”
Noting that the husband is in arrears of Rs.3,70,000 as of today, the court held, “On all these factors entertaining a petition of the petitioner-husband who is in gross default in payment of maintenance, does not arise.”
Appearance: Advocate S.G Rajendra Reddy for Petitioner.
Advocate D.P Mahesh for R1.
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 382
Case Title: Chaithanya Reddy S V AND Nayana & ANR
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 4463 OF 2024