Family courts must give reasoned decisions on interim maintenance and child-education expense applications.

The wife, who had petitioned for divorce, sought interim maintenance for herself and the parties’ minor son, and payment of the child’s school and related fees.

The Family Court dismissed her maintenance application, granted the child maintenance of ₹10,000 per month, and did not clearly address the school-fee request.

The wife challenged the order dated 13 February 2025 in three writ petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution.

The parties had filed statements of assets and liabilities; the husband stated that he earned ₹6,000 per month and was already paying ₹10,000 for the child.

1. Whether the Family Court’s order on the wife’s applications for interim maintenance and the child’s educational expenses could stand when it did not give reasons addressing those claims.

2. Whether the husband should continue paying ₹10,000 per month for the child pending fresh consideration by the Family Court.

Article 227 of the Constitution empowers the High Court to exercise supervisory jurisdiction over subordinate courts.

A judicial order deciding contested applications must provide reasons that show the basis for the relief granted or refused.

The applications included a claim under Section 26 of the Hindu Marriage Act for the child’s educational expenses.

The High Court found that the Family Court had not explained why it fixed the child’s maintenance at ₹10,000, rejected the wife’s maintenance claim, or failed to grant relief for educational expenses.

The parties’ competing claims and financial statements had been placed before it, but the order did not disclose how those matters informed its decision.

In the absence of reasons, the High Court set aside the order and remitted the applications for fresh consideration rather than deciding the claims itself.

Pending that decision, the husband must continue paying ₹10,000 per month.

The Family Court was directed to decide the applications as expeditiously as possible and within one month of receiving the order; all pending interlocutory applications before the High Court were closed.