The Madras High Court has held that a father's responsibility to financially support his minor child continues irrespective of the breakdown of his marriage, observing that a mother's financial independence cannot be used as a reason to absolve the father of his parental obligations.
Justice M.D. Sumathi, sitting at the Madurai Bench, dismissed a father's criminal revision petition challenging an order directing him to pay ₹6,14,887 towards his minor daughter's educational, transportation, medical and other expenses. The Court also strongly disapproved of describing women seeking legitimate financial support for their children as “gold diggers”.
Background
The dispute originated from maintenance proceedings initiated by the mother under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Initially, the Family Court directed the father to pay monthly maintenance to his wife and minor daughter. However, after subsequent proceedings, the wife's maintenance claim was dismissed, while the father was directed to pay ₹20,000 per month towards the daughter's maintenance and meet specified educational and medical expenses.
A compromise was subsequently recorded before the High Court in November 2018, which also contemplated settling a property in favour of the minor daughter. However, the proposed settlement was not completed.
The mother later approached the Family Court seeking reimbursement of expenses incurred for the child's education, transportation, books, uniforms and medical treatment. After adjusting payments already made and excluding certain expenses, the Family Court quantified the amount payable at ₹6,14,887.
The father challenged this order, disputing several medical and transportation bills and arguing that insurance reimbursement could have been obtained.
Justice Sumathi observed that the dispute should not be treated merely as a financial disagreement between separated parents. The expenses were incurred for the minor daughter's welfare, and the mother's employment as a Professor at Bangalore University did not remove the father's independent responsibility.
The Court observed:
"The maintenance proceedings cannot be viewed merely as a monetary dispute between the estranged parents. The amount claimed by the respondent is towards the educational, medical and other essential expenses of the minor daughter, and the same has to be considered from the perspective of the child's welfare."
The Court also addressed the use of derogatory expressions against women seeking financial support for their children. It emphasised that such claims must be examined on evidence rather than assumptions about a mother's intentions.
The judgment stated:
"This Court considers it necessary to express its disapproval of the tendency to stigmatize women who seek financial support by describing them as “gold diggers” or by attributing ulterior financial motives to them without adequate basis. Such expressions are particularly objectionable when the demand concerns the education, healthcare and upbringing of a minor child."
The Court further noted that the Family Court had carefully examined the expenses, credited payments already made, deducted amounts reflected in school records and excluded expenses that were not covered by the earlier maintenance order.
It found that the father had failed to establish any material error in the calculation. The possibility of claiming insurance reimbursement and the objections raised against certain bills were not sufficient grounds to disturb the Family Court's assessment.
Finding no illegality or material irregularity in the Family Court's order, the Madras High Court dismissed the criminal revision petition.
Justice M.D. Sumathi confirmed the direction requiring the father to pay ₹6,14,887 towards the minor daughter's eligible educational, transportation, medical and other expenses.
The Court made no order as to costs.
