Indore– In a significant ruling on family law and child welfare, the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Indore has dismissed a husband's plea to slash maintenance payments to his ex-wife and minor daughter while enhancing the child's allowance threefold, underscoring the paramount importance of a child's right to quality education amid escalating urban living costs.

The decision, delivered by Justice Gajendra Singh on December 17 stems from cross-criminal revisions challenging a Family Court order in a contentious post-divorce maintenance battle under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.), 1973. The case, involving creative director Vikas Naik and his former spouse, highlights ongoing debates around spousal support, parental duties, and the financial strains of single parenthood in India's tier-2 cities like Indore.

The saga began with a Hindu wedding on December 14, 2008, in Indore, followed by the birth of the couple's daughter on July 27, 2010. Marital discord led to a divorce decree on June 16, 2021, granted by the First Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Indore. The dissolution was based on grounds of cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, rather than adultery as alleged by the husband.

Post-divorce, the woman filed an application on June 10, 2021, seeking Rs. 30,000 per month in maintenance for herself and her daughter, citing the husband's alleged Rs. 60,000 monthly salary as a graphics design creative director, plus Rs. 7,000 rental income, and her own inability to sustain the family.

The Third Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Indore, partially allowed the plea in an order dated June 24, awarding Rs. 7,000 monthly to the ex-wife and Rs. 5,000 to the minor daughter, effective from the application date. This sparked dual revisions: one by Vikas Naik, urging the court to nullify the wife's award entirely due to her purported extramarital affair and reduce the daughter's share to Rs. 4,000 from the order date, arguing he was already paying interim maintenance; and another petition by the woman and her daughter, demanding an escalation to Rs. 30,000 for both, emphasizing soaring education and living expenses.

During hearings on October 17, advocates Benudhar Parida (for Vikas) and Dinesh Rawat (for ex-wife) presented contrasting narratives. Vikas contended that the Family Court overlooked adultery findings from the divorce case, supported by documents and ignored the ex-wife's admitted Rs. 15,000 monthly earnings from a beauty parlor job, as per her cross-examination. He further highlighted his Rs. 46,000 income, burdened by elderly parents' care. Vaishali countered with evidence of neglect, her portraying Vikas as financially capable yet evasive on child support.

Justice Gajendra Singh, after meticulous review, rebuffed the husband's adultery defense, quoting directly from the divorce decree and observed, that the decree of divorce was not granted on the ground of adultery.

On the ex-wife's plea for enhanced spousal support, the court adopted a measured stance. However, invoking Chaturbhuj Vs. Sitabai (2008 (2) SCC 316), Justice Singh affirmed, "Award of maintenance cannot be reduced or set aside," preserving the Rs. 7,000 award while denying escalation, balancing her earning capacity against traditional gender roles in homemaking.

The ruling's emotional core lay in provisions for the 15-year-old daughter, now in 9th standard at a public school in Indore, for the 2024-2025 academic year. Noting her residence with the mother and the father's apparent disinterest in custody, "Record discloses that husband ever tried to get the custody of minor daughter", the court lambasted Vikas's priorities: "Mother is investing her valuable time for taking care of the daughter and the respondent is investing that time for pleasure of his personal life." Emphasizing paternal obligations, Justice Singh declared, "Accordingly father have the duty to bear the economic expenses as per the requirement of the daughter and the amount of Rs.5,000/- does not serve the purpose when we consider the comparatively high expenses of Indore city."

In a child-centric pivot, the bench enhanced the daughter's maintenance from Rs. 5,000 to Rs. 15,000 per month, retroactive to June 10, 2021, stating, "There is no case for reduction of amount of maintenance granted in favour of minor daughter but it is proper case for enhancement of maintenance amount from Rs.5,000/- to Rs.15,000/- which shall be payable from the date of application i.e. 10.06.2021." Legal experts hail the verdict as a progressive step in maintenance jurisprudence, reinforcing that divorce does not absolve parental duties.