Education expenses not static, can't be set to rigid upper limit: Karnataka High Court

Bengaluru: The high court has said that the educational expenses are not static and cannot be subjected to a rigid upper limit.

The court said this while directing a Bengaluru resident to bear all educational expenses of his two minor sons who are staying with their mother.

“The expenses towards education depend upon the fee structure prescribed by the particular institution, including tuition fees, transport charges, books, uniforms and other incidental charges. Therefore, any artificial capping of such expenses would be contrary to the welfare of the children,” Justice K Manmadha Rao said.

The couple got married in 2006 and relocated to the United States of America. In 2022, a dispute arose about the husband’s alleged infidelity.

The husband moved the family court seeking custody of his two minor children and restitution of conjugal rights, while the wife sought dissolution of marriage, pending before the family court.

The husband moved the high court challenging restricted visitation rights, and the wife sought enhancement of maintenance.

At an interlocutory stage, the family court had awarded Rs 40,000 per month as interim maintenance, Rs 60,000 as educational expenses and another Rs 25,000 towards litigation expenses.

It was argued on behalf of the wife that the family court had failed to direct payment of educational expenses at actuals directly to the educational institution and instead fixed an inadequate amount.

The husband claimed that the family court had granted limited visitation rights, for three hours on the first and third Saturdays of every month in the visitation room of the family court.

After perusing the material, Justice Manmadha Rao noted that if the children are studying in a particular institution, the father is bound to bear the actual educational expenses as demanded by the institution. 

“Payment of educational expenses directly to the school authorities ensures transparency and continuity in the education of the children. However, such a payment cannot be treated as a substitute for maintenance.”

“Educational expenses and maintenance operate in distinct spheres. While educational expenses cater to schooling, maintenance addresses the day-to-day sustenance and well-being of the wife and children. Both are independent and must be provided for adequately,” the court said.

It redetermined Rs 15,000 per month to each of the minor children and Rs 40,000 per month to the wife, in substitution of the consolidated amount awarded by the family court, while maintaining the direction regarding payment of educational expenses at actuals.

The court further said, “The contention that the visitation arrangement is insufficient to foster meaningful bonding cannot, in the facts of the present case, be a ground to interfere at this stage.”

“The arrangement made by the Family Court is only an interim measure, subject to variation upon change in circumstances or upon further material being placed on record.”

“It is always open to the parties to seek modification before the Family Court, which is empowered to revisit the arrangement in the best interests of the children,” the court said.