Wife equally responsible for son’s education: HC

S Shyam Prasad | NT

Bengaluru: In a matrimonial dispute where both the wife and husband were government employees drawing substantial salary, the High Court said that the wife was equally responsible for the educational expenses of their minor child.

“As both the parties/parents are Government Servants and drawing a substantial sum and it is the equal responsibility of both the cross objector-husband and the respondent-wife to provide a good education to their son Master Deepak. The respondent-wife is equally responsible to bear the educational expenses to be incurred on the minor son,” the Division Bench of Justice G Narendar and Justice Vijaykumar A Patil said allowing an appeal filed by the husband challenging the order of a Family Court which had ruled that he alone was responsible for the educational expenses of the son.

The husband was 42 when he approached the HC with the appeal in 2017. The High Court gave its judgement on it recently. The husband had approached the Family Court in 2012 seeking divorce on grounds of cruelty and desertion.

His application for divorce was allowed and the Family Court also directed him to pay a monthly maintenance of Rs.8,000 to the minor son. It also ordered him to pay the entire educational expenses of the son.

The husband’s contention before the HC was that he was working as a First Division Clerk in the Health Department while the wife was an Assistant Teacher in a Government school and she was drawing more salary than him.

Therefore he alone should not be burdened with the educational expenses of the son. The HC said that the order to pay monthly maintenance of Rs.8,000 was just and proper and it would not interfere with it.

However the HC there was an error in asking the husband to pay the entire educational expenses.

“The Family Court has directed the cross objector-husband to bear the entire education expenses of his son Master Deepak. In our considered view, the Family Court has committed a grave error in directing the cross-objector-husband alone to pay the entire educational expenses,” the HC said.

Modifying the lower court order the HC said, “We are of the considered view that both the cross objector-husband as well as the respondent-wife are required to bear the educational expenses of their son Master Deeapk equally and accordingly, we modify the impugned judgment and decree of the Family Court to that extent. It is made clear that the modification referred supra insofar as incurring of educational expenses equally by the cross objector/husband and respondent-wife, shall operte.” (MFA CROB 0/2017)