Fixed Deposit Cannot Substitute Monthly Maintenance for a Child, Calcutta HC Rules

Calcutta High Court sets aside a magistrate's order directing a husband to place Rs. 11 lakh in a fixed deposit in lieu of monthly maintenance for his minor son, remanding the matter for fresh hearing on actual child expenses.

The High Court at Calcutta, in a criminal revision filed by a wife challenging an order of the Judicial Magistrate, Kalyani, has held that a lump-sum fixed deposit cannot be treated as a substitute for periodic monthly maintenance payable to a minor child under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Justice Chaitali Chatterjee (Das), sitting singly, allowed the revision in part, set aside the fixed-deposit direction, and remanded the matter to the magistrate for a fresh hearing on the question of the child's maintenance. The court's reasoning draws directly on Rajnesh v. Neha, (2021) 2 SCC 324, while declining to disturb the magistrate's refusal to grant maintenance to the wife herself.

The Dispute Before the High Court

The parties married on 21 November 2016 and their son was born on 18 December 2019. The marriage broke down, and the wife lodged a complaint under Section 498A of the IPC (C438 of 2020) against the husband. She then filed an application under Section 125 CrPC before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kalyani, seeking maintenance of Rs. 30,000 per month for herself and Rs. 20,000 per month for the child.

The husband appeared on 19 March 2021 and filed a written objection together with an affidavit of assets and liabilities. On 27 July 2022, the magistrate disposed of the interim maintenance application, directing the husband to pay Rs. 10,000 per month for the son along with arrears from the date of filing in four equal monthly instalments. That interim amount remained unpaid for 20 months up to the date of final disposal.

By the final order dated 12 October 2022, in Misc. Case No. 09 of 2021, the magistrate refused monthly maintenance for both the wife and the child. Instead, it directed the husband to hand over a bank fixed deposit certificate of Rs. 11,00,000 in the name of the minor son, making the wife the nominee. The wife challenged that order by way of CRR 146 of 2023 before the High Court.

What the Magistrate Found About Both Parties' Incomes

The magistrate's findings on income formed the basis for refusing monthly maintenance. During cross-examination, the wife stated she had worked as Assistant Manager at Vikram Solar Limited in 2018 and later joined Environment Solar Limited. At the time of giving evidence, she was working as Assistant Manager at Tuaman Engineering Limited with a gross salary of Rs. 40,000 per month. She also produced a payslip showing Rs. 55,425 per month.

The husband was found to be working at Nandan Lamination with a salary of Rs. 50,000 per month. The magistrate observed that his mother was the proprietor of Nandan Lamination and no document was produced to show the husband was the proprietor. The magistrate concluded that both parties had similar financial standing, that both parents are equally bound to maintain their child, and that the wife—having sufficient income of her own—was duty-bound to contribute to her son's upkeep. On that basis it declined monthly maintenance and directed the fixed deposit instead.

The Legal Issue: Whether a Fixed Deposit Discharges a Maintenance Obligation

Before the High Court, the wife's counsel argued that the magistrate had initially allowed interim maintenance in her favour but reversed course at the final stage without adequately weighing the day-to-day expenses of maintaining the child. A chart of establishment expenses for 2023–2025 was filed before the High Court, showing total child expenses of Rs. 4,81,342, of which Rs. 3,70,490 had been paid by the husband, leaving Rs. 1,10,850 due. Fee details for PathaBhavan Montessori and Primary Department School and the 2026–27 fee structure of Garden High School, IISER Kolkata campus at Mohanpur–Kalyani, were also placed on record. The court noted that none of these documents had been placed before the magistrate.

The wife's counsel relied on Rajnesh v. Neha, (2021) 2 SCC 324, contending that the Supreme Court had never sanctioned a fixed deposit as a substitute for monthly maintenance when the petitioner needed money for day-to-day expenses of the child. Counsel also pointed out that the monthly interest on the Rs. 11 lakh deposit worked out to approximately Rs. 6,000—an amount the wife did not accept as adequate—but indicated no objection to withdrawing interest for the child's expenses pending final disposal.

The husband's counsel defended the magistrate's order. He submitted that the husband had deposited Rs. 11 lakh after taking a loan, and had also filed a duplicate copy of the interest certificate. He argued the deposit was made to secure the child's future, that a substantial interest amount (certified by the bank at Rs. 73,774 per year) would accrue, and that the deposit would mature on 19 October 2032 when the child attained majority. He further contested the expense chart, saying the wife had not annexed fee receipts, invoices, bank statements, or any contemporaneous documentary evidence, leaving the chart as an unverified statement prepared solely by her. He submitted the husband was not in a position to pay further after making such a large deposit.

How the Bench Reasoned

Justice Chatterjee (Das) observed that the financial status of both parties was broadly similar, and accepted the settled proposition that both parents are equally liable to maintain their child. The court also noticed that the child had moved from PathaBhavan to Garden High School, IISER Kolkata campus in 2026, inferring that the wife had sufficient means to admit the child to a school with higher fees without depending solely on any court-ordered maintenance.

On the wife's claim that she had no income at the time of the revision, the court noted that in her 2023 petition she had disclosed her occupation as “service.” No further application updating the court about any change in employment had been filed. The court therefore declined to interfere with the magistrate's refusal to grant maintenance to the wife.

On the central question of the fixed deposit, however, the court agreed with the submission drawn from Rajnesh v. Neha. Justice Chatterjee (Das) reasoned that “that cannot be substituted for the monthly maintenance” even where a father places a large lump sum as a fixed deposit to secure a child's future. There is no bar to a father making such a deposit, but it cannot stand in place of periodic maintenance covering day-to-day expenses.

The court found a distinct procedural gap: the expense chart and school fee documents that formed the core of the wife's case had never been placed before the magistrate. Without those materials, the magistrate had no proper basis on which to assess what monthly sum, if any, was required. That gap, the court held, required the matter to be remanded rather than decided on the revision record alone.

On the interest accruing from the fixed deposit, the court recorded that the husband's own counsel did not object to the wife withdrawing interest for the child's expenses pending fresh disposal, and built that into the interim arrangement.

Order

The revision was allowed in part by order dated 31 July 2026. The specific directions are:

• The portion of the magistrate's order dated 12 October 2022 directing the husband to place Rs. 11 lakh as a fixed deposit is set aside.
• The wife is granted liberty to file a fresh affidavit with all supporting documents in respect of her claim for regular monthly maintenance for the minor child.
• The magistrate is directed to give a fresh hearing to both parties on the point of child maintenance and to dispose of the proceeding preferably within three months from the date of filing of fresh affidavits.
• Pending final disposal, the wife is at liberty to withdraw the interest amount derived from the existing fixed deposit of Rs. 11 lakh towards the child's regular maintenance.
• If the magistrate ultimately grants monthly maintenance in favour of the child, the opposite party/father shall be permitted to close the existing fixed deposit if he chooses to do so, so that he is not saddled with both a monthly maintenance obligation and the continuation of the deposit.

The wife's challenge to the refusal of maintenance in her own favour was not accepted, and that portion of the magistrate's order stands.