Actual educational expenses cannot be capped and must be paid in addition to monthly maintenance.

The parties, married in 2006, have two minor sons born in 2012 and 2017

Following matrimonial disputes and allegations of abuse and infidelity, the husband instituted G&WC No. 120/2023 for custody

The Family Court awarded ₹40,000/- as monthly maintenance for the wife and children, and capped educational expenses at ₹60,000/- monthly

It further denied the father interim custody, restricting his visitation to the 1st and 3rd Saturdays at the Court’s visitation room

All parties filed writ petitions: the wife sought enhancement of maintenance; the husband challenged the maintenance as excessive and the visitation restrictions as overly narrow

1. Whether the consolidated interim maintenance of ₹40,000/- and the capped educational expenses of ₹60,000/- were just and realistic given the husband's income and children's needs

2. Whether the Family Court erred in restricting the father’s visitation rights to a supervised court environment and denying interim custody

Maintenance must be realistic, commensurate with the husband's financial capacity, and ensure a standard of living similar to the matrimonial home as established in Rajnesh v. Neha (2021) 2 SCC 324

Under the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, the court applied the "paramount consideration of the child's welfare" doctrine

Child Access Custody Guidelines/Parenting Plan 2025 (originating from the Calcutta High Court and adopted by the Karnataka High Court) for the expeditious disposal of custody matters

The Court found that the husband’s gross salary of ₹2,41,760/- justified an upward revision, noting that voluntary financial liabilities like housing loan EMIs cannot supersede the statutory duty to maintain dependents

The Court held that capping educational expenses at ₹60,000/- was "fundamentally flawed" because such costs are dynamic; the father must bear actual costs directly to the institution to ensure transparency

The Court declined to interfere with the Family Court’s refusal of interim custody under Article 227, as the lower court had interacted with the children who expressed discomfort and reluctance toward the father

The supervised visitation in the court premises was found to be a valid exercise of judicial discretion at the interim stage to balance the children's expressed comfort with the father's access

The Court modified the maintenance order but upheld the visitation/custody order and directed the Family Court to dispose of the main petition (G&WC No. 120/2023) expeditiously in accordance with the 2025 Child Access Guidelines