Madras HC Upholds ₹6.14 Lakh Award Against Father For Daughter’s School, Transport And Medical Expenses

The respondents, a mother and her minor daughter, had sought maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C.

The Family Court ultimately directed the petitioner-father to pay the daughter Rs.20,000 per month and specified educational and unusual medical expenses; the wife’s maintenance claim was dismissed.

A compromise recorded in the revision proceedings modified the commencement date of maintenance to 14 August 2014 and contemplated settlement of a property in favour of the daughter, but the property settlement was not completed.

The mother then sought recovery of maintenance and other expenses. The Family Court credited payments totalling Rs.11,87,000 against monthly maintenance, found no further arrears under that head, assessed eligible educational and medical expenses, excluded certain items, and ordered payment of Rs.6,14,887.

The father challenged that order, disputing, among other matters, the transportation and medical bills, insurance reimbursement, and school-fee accounting.

The petition was considered under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C., which confer revisional jurisdiction; the Court stated that interference is warranted where an order discloses illegality, material irregularity or a conclusion unsupported by the record.

The underlying maintenance proceedings arose under Section 125 Cr.P.C., and the earlier Family Court order required the father to pay specified maintenance and educational and unusual medical expenses for the child.

The Court also referred to Hitesh Makhija v. Ritu Makhija, 2025 SCC OnLine Del 9664, for the principles that maintenance is not charity, that parental responsibility continues after marital breakdown, and that a caregiving parent’s financial capacity does not, by itself, extinguish the other parent’s responsibility towards the child.

The Court found that the Family Court had assessed the expenses against the scope of the earlier order, credited payments, deducted Rs.28,666 in school-fee payments and excluded items it considered outside the order.

The father did not identify a specific material error in that assessment. General denial of the bills and the assertion that insurance reimbursement could have been sought did not establish that the expenses were not incurred or were ineligible; nor did the school-fee objection justify substituting a different factual assessment in revision.

The Court further held that the mother’s employment did not absolve the father of his parental obligation towards the child.

It dismissed the Criminal Revision Petition and confirmed the Family Court’s order dated 22 September 2022 directing payment of Rs.6,14,887; there was no order as to costs.