The Calcutta High Court has held that a fixed deposit created for a child's future cannot be treated as a substitute for monthly maintenance meant to meet the child's day-to-day needs. While partly allowing a revision petition filed by a wife, the Court set aside a Magistrate's direction requiring the husband to create an ₹11 lakh fixed deposit in the child's name and ordered a fresh hearing on the issue of maintenance for the minor. At the same time, the Court declined to interfere with the refusal of maintenance to the wife.
Background of the Case
The dispute arose from proceedings under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, where the wife had sought monthly maintenance of ₹30,000 for herself and ₹20,000 for her minor child. The Judicial Magistrate had initially granted interim maintenance of ₹10,000 per month for the child. However, in the final order passed in October 2022, the Magistrate refused monthly maintenance to both the wife and the child, instead directing the husband to hand over an ₹11 lakh fixed deposit in the name of the minor child, with the mother as nominee.
The wife challenged that decision before the High Court, arguing that the fixed deposit could not meet the child's regular educational and living expenses.
Court's Observations
Justice Chaitali Chatterjee (Das) examined the financial position of both parties and noted that the wife was well qualified, held professional degrees, and had previously disclosed a monthly salary exceeding ₹55,000. The Court also found that the husband's salary was around ₹50,000 per month and that there was no evidence proving he owned the family business.
The Court observed that both parents share an equal legal responsibility to maintain their child. However, it also found that the mother had not placed detailed evidence of the child's actual expenses before the Magistrate during the original proceedings.
Referring to the arrangement of the fixed deposit, the bench observed,
"There is no embargo if a father gives any amount as fixed deposit to secure the future interest of the child but that cannot be substituted [for] the monthly maintenance."
The Court further noted that although the fixed deposit earned interest, maintenance is intended to cover recurring day-to-day expenses, which cannot automatically be replaced by a long-term investment.
Decision
Partly allowing the revision petition, the High Court upheld the Magistrate's refusal to grant maintenance to the wife but set aside the direction requiring the husband to keep ₹11 lakh in a fixed deposit as a substitute for child maintenance.
The matter has been remanded to the Magistrate for a fresh hearing on the issue of maintenance payable to the minor child after both parties file supporting documents. Until the proceedings conclude, the mother has been permitted to withdraw the interest earned on the fixed deposit towards the child's regular maintenance.
The Magistrate has also been directed to dispose of the matter, preferably within three months of the filing of fresh affidavits.
Case Details
Case Title: Poulami Tarafdar (Saha) v. Dibesh Saha
Case Number: CRR 146 of 2023
Judge: Justice Chaitali Chatterjee (Das)
Decision Date: 31 July 2026
-300x169.webp)