MP High Court Directs Father to Pay Rs 46.26 Lakh for Daughters' Higher Education, Holds Family Court Failed to Consider Post-Application Developments

The Madhya Pradesh High Court at Indore enhanced maintenance by directing a father to pay over Rs 46 lakh in educational expenses for two daughters pursuing medicine and engineering abroad and in India, finding the Family Court had ignored significant developments that occurred after the maintenance application was filed.

The High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Indore has partly allowed a criminal revision filed by a wife and her two daughters against a Family Court order that awarded maintenance of Rs 6,000 per month to the wife and Rs 3,000 per month each to the daughters. Justice Gajendra Singh, sitting singly, found that the Principal Judge, Family Court, Mandsaur had failed to account for the actual educational expenses incurred after the maintenance application was filed in 2018. The court directed the respondent-husband to pay a total of Rs 46,26,200 towards the daughters' higher education costs, with a four-month deadline and interest at 6% per annum on default.

The Dispute Before the High Court

The marriage between the parties was solemnised on 16 April 2000 under Hindu rituals. Two daughters were born from the wedlock: the elder daughter Tanvi, born on 21 October 2001, and the younger daughter Tanisha, born on 11 March 2003.

On 15 October 2018, the wife filed an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the Family Court at Mandsaur, claiming inability to maintain herself and the children, neglect by the husband, and sufficiency of the husband's means. The application sought Rs 1,00,000 per month for the wife, Rs 50,000 per month for each daughter, and additionally Rs 50,000 per month for the elder daughter's higher studies and Rs 6,50,000 per annum for the younger daughter's educational expenses. The wife alleged the husband earned Rs 12,00,000 per month.

The husband opposed the application, contending the claims were imaginary, that he was under a debt of Rs 20,00,000, had lost earning capacity due to a hostile atmosphere and false complaints, and that the wife resided in a house built by him at a cost of Rs 50,00,000. He stated he had filed for divorce and had attempted compromise.

The Family Court, after recording evidence, found the husband's income to be between Rs 25,000 and Rs 50,000 per month. It also relied on a compromise document, Exhibit P/1, under which Rs 12,000 per month as maintenance had been settled. Accordingly, it awarded Rs 6,000 per month to the wife and Rs 3,000 per month each to the daughters, with the daughters' maintenance limited until they attained majority. The order was passed on 24 January 2026 in MJC No. 261/2018.

The revision petitioners challenged this order before the High Court under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act, 1984, arguing that the trial court had wrongly assessed the husband's income and had awarded a meagre amount, and that it had not considered that the daughters were by then pursuing higher education.

The Husband's Financial Position and the Family Court's Omission

Justice Gajendra Singh examined the record and found that the husband, Deepak, is the Chairman of Shree Jee Graphics Computer Society Samiti, registered under the Madhya Pradesh Cooperative Society Act, 1973. The court also noted that as per Exhibit P/3A, the husband runs Shree Jee Institute of Nursing Science, District Mandsaur.

In his own deposition as DW-1, Deepak admitted that Exhibit D/1 disclosed his income as Rs 17,18,000 as per the balance sheet for 2016–2017. He further admitted ownership of a car and two two-wheelers, as well as various bank accounts. On the basis of these admissions, the court concluded that Deepak is a person of sound financial status.

The court observed that income tax returns do not necessarily reflect actual income and that income can be assessed in the light of surrounding circumstances. The husband's chairmanship of a registered cooperative society and his running of a nursing institute were treated as relevant circumstances pointing to financial capacity beyond what the tax returns showed.

On the question of the compromise document Exhibit P/1, the court held that the agreement fixing Rs 12,000 per month could not stand in the way when the position of the daughters had materially changed due to their higher studies. The Family Court had capped the daughters' maintenance at majority and had not considered the educational expenses that had actually been incurred.

The Daughters' Higher Education Expenses

After the maintenance application was filed in 2018, both daughters secured admissions to higher education institutions. These developments, the High Court found, were not considered by the Family Court.

Tanisha, the younger daughter, was admitted to the Medical Doctor (M.D.) programme at Kyrgyz State Medical Academy through ISME Edutech Pvt. Ltd., commencing from the 2020–2021 session for a five-year course. The fee structure as per Exhibit P/4 was as follows:

• 2020–2021: USD 8,400 (converted at Rs 74 per USD) — Rs 6,21,600
• 2021–2022: USD 6,400 (converted at Rs 72 per USD) — Rs 4,60,800
• 2022–2023: USD 6,400 (converted at Rs 77 per USD) — Rs 4,92,800
• 2023–2024: USD 6,400 (converted at Rs 82 per USD) — Rs 5,24,800
• 2024–2025: USD 6,400 (converted at Rs 89 per USD) — Rs 5,69,600

The grand total for Tanisha's medical education came to Rs 26,69,600.

Tanvi, the elder daughter, was admitted to Manipal University Jaipur for a four-year B.Tech (Computer Science and Engineering) course. As per Exhibits P/5 and P/6, the expenses were:

• 2020–2021: Tuition fee Rs 3,19,000 + Mess fee Rs 18,600 + Hostel fee Rs 1,49,150 = Rs 4,86,750
• 2021–2022: Rs 2,94,000 + Rs 62,000 + Rs 1,34,150 = Rs 4,90,150
• 2022–2023: Rs 2,94,000 + Rs 62,000 + Rs 1,34,150 = Rs 4,90,150
• 2023–2024: Rs 2,94,000 + Rs 62,000 + Rs 1,34,150 = Rs 4,90,150

The grand total for Tanvi's engineering education came to Rs 19,56,600.

The Court's Reasoning on Parental Obligation

Justice Gajendra Singh held that a father is obliged to provide education to daughters as well. The court observed that the wife holds a Bachelor of Education degree and, on that basis, declined to enhance the maintenance awarded to her. However, so far as the daughters were concerned, the court found the Family Court had entirely failed to consider their educational expenses.

The court stated that women's empowerment does not remain on paper and requires implementation, and that the father, having sufficient income, cannot deprive girl children of educational expenses. The court found that the compromise document Exhibit P/1 could not override the daughters' changed circumstances arising from their admission to professional courses after 2018.

The court also noted that the house in which the wife resides has been put to litigation by the husband through a civil suit, and that the husband is attempting to dispossess the revision petitioners from that house — a fact the Family Court had not adequately appreciated.

Order

The revision petition was partly allowed. The High Court directed the respondent-husband Deepak to pay a total of Rs 46,26,200 (being Rs 26,69,600 for Tanisha and Rs 19,56,600 for Tanvi) towards the educational expenses of the two daughters. The amount already paid, if any, is to be adjusted against this sum.

The entire amount is to be paid within four months from the date of the order, i.e., from 29 May 2026. In the event of failure to pay within the stipulated period, interest at 6% per annum shall be applicable on the outstanding amount.

The revision petitioners were also granted liberty to approach the appropriate court for execution of the order in accordance with law. The maintenance awarded to the wife at Rs 6,000 per month was not disturbed. A copy of the order was directed to be sent to the Family Court, Mandsaur for information.