Interim maintenance must reflect actual educational costs and city-specific living standards regardless of loan liabilities.

The parties were married in 2006 and have two minor sons, aged 12 and 7

Following matrimonial disputes and allegations of abuse and infidelity, the parties separated in March 2022. The husband (Respondent/Petitioner) instituted G&WC No. 120/2023 for child custody, while the wife (Petitioner/Respondent) sought dissolution of marriage

On 02.07.2024, the Family Court passed interim orders directing the husband to pay ₹40,000/- as monthly maintenance and ₹60,000/- for educational expenses, while restricting his visitation to the 1st and 3rd Saturdays of every month at the court’s visitation room

All three writ petitions challenge this order: the wife seeks enhancement of maintenance, while the husband challenges the maintenance quantum as excessive and the visitation restrictions as too limited

1. Whether the interim maintenance and educational expenses awarded by the Family Court were just and commensurate with the husband’s financial capacity and the children's needs

2. Whether the restricted visitation rights granted to the father subserve the paramount welfare of the minor children

The Court primarily applied the principles from Rajnesh v. Neha (2021) 2 SCC 324, which mandates that maintenance must be realistic, ensure a standard of living similar to the matrimonial home, and be determined based on an affidavit of assets and liabilities

The Court also relied on the "paramount consideration of child welfare" doctrine under the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890

Furthermore, for visitation and parenting plans, the Court referenced the Child Access Custody Guidelines Parenting Plan 2025 (Calcutta High Court guidelines) adopted by the Karnataka High Court

Regarding maintenance, the Court held that the husband’s gross salary of ₹2,41,760/- is the correct basis for calculation, and voluntary financial liabilities like housing loan EMIs cannot take precedence over the statutory duty to maintain dependents

The Court found the Family Court’s decision to cap educational expenses at ₹60,000/- fundamentally flawed, as schooling costs are dynamic and must be paid at actuals directly to institutions to ensure transparency

Regarding custody/visitation, the Court noted that under Article 227, it should be slow to interfere with discretionary interim orders unless perverse

Since the children expressed reluctance and discomfort during interaction with the Family Court, the restricted, supervised visitation was deemed a justified interim measure to balance caution with access

(ii) The husband must pay entire educational expenses at actuals directly to the institutions without any monetary cap

(iii) The husband shall bear extracurricular, medical, and book expenses

(iv) The visitation order (1st and 3rd Saturdays) is upheld as an interim measure, with a direction to the Family Court to dispose of the main petition expeditiously in accordance with the 2025 Parenting Plan guidelines