MP High Court Raises Wife's Maintenance to Rs 7,500 and Daughter's to Rs 10,000, Rejects Son's Education Costs as Ground to Limit Support

The Madhya Pradesh High Court at Indore enhanced maintenance for a wife and minor daughter of a government servant, holding that a son's technical education expenses cannot restrict the daughter's right to dignified support.

The High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Indore has enhanced the monthly maintenance awarded to a wife and her minor daughter by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Neemuch. Justice Gajendra Singh, sitting singly, allowed the criminal revision in part, raising the wife's maintenance from Rs 5,000 to Rs 7,500 per month and the minor daughter's from Rs 2,000 to Rs 10,000 per month, both payable from the date of the original application, 22 February 2024. The court held that a government servant's voluntary payment of his major son's engineering college fees cannot be used to dilute his statutory obligation to maintain his wife and minor daughter, and that the right to maintenance includes the right to live with dignity.

The Dispute Before the High Court

The petitioners — the wife, Madhu, and her minor daughter, Chestha — challenged the quantum of maintenance fixed by the Family Court in MJCR No. 48/2024 by order dated 11 August 2025. They sought enhancement to Rs 20,000 per month for the wife and Rs 10,000 per month for the minor daughter.

The marriage between the wife and the respondent, Hemendra Kumar, was solemnised on 9 December 2001 at Village Bawal, Tehsil Jawad, District Neemuch, Madhya Pradesh. Two children were born of the marriage. The elder son had attained majority; the younger daughter, Chestha, remained a minor and was living with her mother.

The petitioners filed their application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on 22 February 2024, alleging physical assault, harassment, and economic exploitation. They claimed the respondent was earning approximately Rs 80,000 per month and also held immovable properties generating annual income of around Rs 15,00,000. On that basis, they sought maintenance of Rs 50,000 per month.

The respondent denied all allegations. He contended that he was bearing the elder son's B.Tech. education expenses at Jaipur, amounting to Rs 5,45,000 per annum plus a monthly pocket allowance of Rs 5,000 to Rs 7,000. He also alleged that the wife had deprived him of conjugal rights and had filed a petition for restitution of conjugal rights, arguing no case for maintenance was made out.

The Family Court, after recording the testimony of both petitioners and the respondent and exhibiting documents Exhibits P/1 to P/18 and Articles D/1 and D/2, partly allowed the application. It found in paragraph 28 of its order that the petitioners were unable to maintain themselves and that the respondent had sufficient means. However, it awarded only Rs 5,000 per month to the wife and Rs 2,000 per month to the minor daughter, citing the respondent's partial maintenance arrangements and his responsibility towards aged parents.

The criminal revision before the High Court was filed under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act, 1984, challenging the adequacy of those amounts.

Income, Educational Expenses, and the Daughter's Claim

Justice Gajendra Singh examined the respondent's pay slip for May 2024 (Article D/2). It showed a basic salary of Rs 55,900, a gross salary of Rs 81,130, and a net salary of Rs 72,915 per month. The respondent works as a Middle Teacher and is a government servant. The court noted that Article D/1 was not relevant to the controversy.

The minor daughter, Chestha, was studying at Carmel Convent Senior Secondary School, Neemuch, in Class XI during the academic session 2024–2025, as reflected in Exhibit P/18. Examining herself as PW-2, she stated that the respondent had deposited only the school fees mentioned in Exhibit P/18 and had thereafter borne no other educational or personal expenses.

The court found that the Family Court had ignored the income from agricultural land reflected in Exhibit P/7, which stands in the name of the respondent's father. It also noted that the respondent's father is a pensioner receiving pensionary benefits, which undermined the claim that maintaining aged parents justified restricting the wife and daughter's maintenance.

How the Court Reasoned

The court's reasoning turned on two related propositions. First, voluntary payment of a major son's technical education expenses cannot reduce the statutory obligation to maintain a wife and minor daughter. The court observed that the respondent could not be permitted to discriminate between the educational expenses of the son and the daughter. If he was bearing substantial costs for the son's B.Tech. programme, that could not be a ground to restrict reasonable maintenance and educational support to the minor daughter.

Second, the court held that “the wife and daughter of a government servant cannot be compelled to survive merely on the mercy of the husband.” It stated that the expression “maintenance” includes the right to live with dignity, and that children pursuing school education cannot be left at the mercy of their parents.

The court gave the minor daughter priority consideration over the major son. It took into account the respondent's net salary of Rs 72,915 per month, the rising cost of living, and the educational needs of Chestha. On that basis, it concluded that the amounts awarded by the Family Court required enhancement.

Outcome

By order dated 6 May 2026, Justice Gajendra Singh partly allowed Criminal Revision No. 4655 of 2025. The maintenance awarded to petitioner No. 1, the wife, was enhanced from Rs 5,000 to Rs 7,500 per month. The maintenance awarded to petitioner No. 2, the minor daughter, was enhanced from Rs 2,000 to Rs 10,000 per month. Both amounts are payable from the date of the original application, 22 February 2024.

The court directed that amounts already deposited be adjusted accordingly. A copy of the order was directed to be sent to the Family Court, Neemuch, for information and compliance.