Mumbai (Maharashtra): The Bombay High Court recently held that when a child is being sent abroad for higher education, the concurrence of both the parents, particularly the one who is paying for it is necessary.
A division bench of Justice Akil Kureshi and Justice SJ Kathawalla passed the order while hearing a civil application filed by one Sheetal Bhatija in her appeal against the family court order seeking directions to her divorced husband to pay ₹1.20 crore towards the education of their daughter in Australia.
However, the court said that as the husband was not consulted about her education, he should only pay ₹25 lakh. “When a ward is being sent for education abroad at a relatively young age, which entails considerable expenditure, the concurrence of both parents, particularly one who is expected to bear the expenditure thereof, would be necessary,” the HC said.
The bench, while hearing the civil application filed by the woman in a family court appeal, was told by advocates Abhijeet Sarwate and Ajinkya Udane that as per a family court order, the husband was paying maintenance of ₹30,000 and ₹20,000 each, for their two daughters. One of the daughters had been admitted to a five-year course in Australia in 2014, and the mother had mortgaged her flat to bear the cost. The advocates submitted that as the father was well-off, he should pay the ₹1.20 crore.
However, advocates Ashish Kamat and Ramchandra Yadav, representing the father, argued that while their client had been financially well-off in the past, he had withdrawn from active business and could not afford his daughter’s education. They submitted that the mother had taken a unilateral decision to send the daughter to Australia, without consulting their client, and so he cannot be asked to bear the cost.
“The applicant cannot take a unilateral decision of such magnitude and simply send the bill for the expenditure to the father,” the court said as it directed the father to pay ₹25 lakh towards his daughter’s education.
The marriage between Sheetal and husband Deepak was dissolved by the family court by mutual consent under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. However, the wife being aggrieved by the dismissal of her claim for maintenance, lump sum alimony, residence, and litigation expenses; insufficient maintenance with regard to her daughters, Shloka and Shrishti and her claim for reinstatement of her associate membership in Khar Gymkhana, filed the present family court appeal.
In her appeal, Sheetal had sought interim maintenance of Rs.50,000 per month for herself; further a sum of Rs.55,000 per month towards rent for herself; further a sum of Rs.55,000 per month towards rent for herself and two daughters. She has also prayed for the reimbursement of a sum of Rs.1.20 crores to be made by the respondent-husband which she has spent for the higher education of her daughter in Australia. Yet another prayer for payment of a sum equivalent to 2100 Australian dollars per month for the educational expenses for the elder daughter Shristi for the remaining period. Along with this, a maintenance of Rs.1,00,000 per month for younger daughter Shloka and reimbursement of litigation cost of Rs.2,00,000.
Order:
At the very outset, the bench observed- "Both sides have thus, tried to project a rather bleak financial picture of their resources as against rosy picture of the opponent's. We would have to wade through the documents on record in order to come to just conclusion." After determining the applicant's financial status and monthly income, the bench noted – "the husband undoubtedly had sizeable financial resources in the past, nevertheless there is no clear direct proof of his current income".
However, the Court acknowledged that not too far back, the husband was engaged in multiple businesses, such as film financing and private financing. Finally, the bench said- "Surely, such investments would not be wiped out overnight. Thus, we refuse to believe the entire version of the husband about his financial resources. At the same time, we do not find it appropriate to direct him to bear the entire educational expenses. This is so because
(i) The applicant has not been able to produce clear evidence of the current financial capacity of the husband
(ii) Concededly the decision to send the daughter for higher education abroad was taken out consultation of the husband, whatever the reason for non-consultation may be;
Also read: NCP leader Sharad Pawar to meet Sonia Gandhi as impasse continues in Maharashtra
(iii) When a ward is being sent for higher education abroad at a relatively young age, which entails considerable expenditure, the concurrence of both the parents, particularly one who is expected to bear the expenditure thereof, would be necessary.
"The husband certainly would have a right to enquire about the university where the child is likely to be admitted, the course being pursued, the aptitude of the child in the particular branch of education etc., which would be relevant factors. The applicant cannot take a unilateral decision of such magnitude and simply send the bill for the expenditure to the father."
Therefore, looking at the resources of the husband and the fact that their daughter Shrishti was doing well in Australia, Court directed the husband to pay Rs.25 lakh to the applicant wife within four weeks.
