Nagpur: Both the parents should be equally responsible for looking after the education expenses of their children, ruled Nagpur Bench Bombay High Court After approaching an 18 year old child because he was finding it difficult to pay the fees IIT Dhanbad, where he has obtained admission in Mechanical Branch.
Rejecting the contention of the father that he is not able to raise the maintenance money as he has to look after his old mother, divorced sister and her daughter, the bench also observed that “the children in the matter of recruitment Parents should be the first priority.” “Before the birth of the petitioner in 2001, his parents got separated and he is living with his mother. Both his parents are employed as teachers, each getting a salary of over Rs 48,000. Therefore, it is clear that both are equally responsible for sharing the education expenses along with the maintenance of their son,” a bench of justices Atul Chandurkar And Justice GN Sanap said.
“Even if it is assumed, for the sake of argument, that some other person is dependent on the father, the child should be his first priority in the matter of maintenance. fails to share, then the mother will have to bear unnecessary burden,” the bench asked the father to increase the monthly maintenance from Rs 5,000 to Rs 7,500 with effect from October 27, 2015. , the date on which the student filed the petition.
The young man, who secured 93 per cent marks in his Class X examination, had moved the High Court after finding it difficult to pay the course fees at IIT Dhanbad. Till now, his education and other expenses were borne by his mother, while his father used to pay him Rs 5,000 per month, as decided by a court. The petitioner had prayed to increase the maintenance to Rs 15,000 so that he could pay the college fees.
“It is observed that the petitioner, who happens to be a brilliant child, has been made to face this unfortunate situation. Considering their plight and needs, they were compelled to knock on the doors of the judiciary,” observed the judges. The parents were divorced by mutual consent on 21 July 2009. The petitioner argued that her father, who was a teacher in a Zilla Parishad school, did not bother to maintain her or look after her well being after her birth. On the other hand, her mother faced difficulties in raising her with her meager salary, the petition said.
Rejecting the contention of the father that he is not able to raise the maintenance money as he has to look after his old mother, divorced sister and her daughter, the bench also observed that “the children in the matter of recruitment Parents should be the first priority.” “Before the birth of the petitioner in 2001, his parents got separated and he is living with his mother. Both his parents are employed as teachers, each getting a salary of over Rs 48,000. Therefore, it is clear that both are equally responsible for sharing the education expenses along with the maintenance of their son,” a bench of justices Atul Chandurkar And Justice GN Sanap said.
“Even if it is assumed, for the sake of argument, that some other person is dependent on the father, the child should be his first priority in the matter of maintenance. fails to share, then the mother will have to bear unnecessary burden,” the bench asked the father to increase the monthly maintenance from Rs 5,000 to Rs 7,500 with effect from October 27, 2015. , the date on which the student filed the petition.
The young man, who secured 93 per cent marks in his Class X examination, had moved the High Court after finding it difficult to pay the course fees at IIT Dhanbad. Till now, his education and other expenses were borne by his mother, while his father used to pay him Rs 5,000 per month, as decided by a court. The petitioner had prayed to increase the maintenance to Rs 15,000 so that he could pay the college fees.
“It is observed that the petitioner, who happens to be a brilliant child, has been made to face this unfortunate situation. Considering their plight and needs, they were compelled to knock on the doors of the judiciary,” observed the judges. The parents were divorced by mutual consent on 21 July 2009. The petitioner argued that her father, who was a teacher in a Zilla Parishad school, did not bother to maintain her or look after her well being after her birth. On the other hand, her mother faced difficulties in raising her with her meager salary, the petition said.
.