The High Court of Karnataka has reinforced the principle that a husband's duty to provide maintenance for his wife and child is separate from his obligation to pay for the child's school fees.

Justice M. Nagaprasanna made it clear that settling school fees does not exempt the husband from his responsibility to cover the living expenses of his wife and child.

The ruling came in response to a case where the husband, who had previously contested lower court orders, argued that his payment of school fees should offset his obligation for interim maintenance. The husband, a professor with a monthly income of ₹30,000, challenged the interim maintenance orders of ₹5,000 each for his wife and their five-year-old daughter. He contended that meeting these payments in addition to school fees was financially burdensome and argued that his wife, having previously worked for Infosys, did not need maintenance.

The case had its origins in a marital dispute that led to multiple legal proceedings, including charges under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, alongside an application under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act. The Principal Civil Judge and JMFC of Chitradurga had initially granted the interim maintenance in January 2021, which was later upheld by the Principal District and Sessions Judge in September 2021. The husband then approached the High Court seeking relief.

In court, the husband’s counsel, Advocate S.G. Rajendra Reddy, highlighted his financial constraints but was met with the wife’s rebuttal by Advocate D.P. Mahesh. The wife argued that she had resigned from her job at her husband’s request to focus on their child, making the maintenance crucial for her and her child's welfare. She also pointed out the husband's arrears of ₹3,70,000 in maintenance payments.

The High Court emphasized that the husband's duty to provide maintenance remains regardless of other financial obligations, such as school fees. “Payment of the fees is altogether a different responsibility apart from the husband’s duty to maintain the wife and child,” Justice Nagaprasanna remarked.

The Court dismissed the husband's petition, rejecting the claim of financial incapacity as an excuse for defaulting on maintenance payments. It upheld the lower courts' orders, reaffirming the husband's obligation to support his wife and child.

Cause Title: CHAITHANYA REDDY S.V v SMT. NAYANA [CRL.P No. 4463 of 2024]