New Delhi: A court has ruled that maintenance awarded for a minor cannot be parked in fixed deposits instead of being used for the child’s immediate needs.“Maintenance is intended to meet the present and recurring needs of the child,” additional sessions judge Bhupinder Singh said. If the entire amount remains invested, it would “defeat the very purpose” of such an award, he added.Judge Singh made the observation while deciding cross-appeals against an interim maintenance order. The husband challenged the legal basis of the award, contending that the wife was gainfully employed, while the wife sought separate maintenance for herself, claiming that her husband earned over Rs 1 lakh per month.The dispute arose from a trial court order directing the husband to pay Rs 7,000 per month from the date of filing of the petition till Jan 2021 and Rs 14,000 per month, with an annual increment of 5%, from Feb 2021 till disposal of the petition, towards the maintenance of his minor daughter.The husband argued that the amount was not proportionate to the salaries of the parties and sought to have it diverted to a savings account for the child’s future use. The court rejected the plea.The judge also dismissed the contention that the maintenance amount was disproportionate and the wife’s salary of over Rs 60,000 wasn’t properly considered. “The custodial parent already contributes through continuous care and supervision. Consequently, a somewhat larger financial contribution from the non-custodial parent, particularly where his income is substantially higher, cannot be regarded as unreasonable,” the court said.Emphasising that a growing child’s requirements extended beyond basic educational expenses, and included food, clothing, healthcare, transportation and other incidental expenses, the court upheld the trial court’s order.It also dismissed the husband’s argument that the wife had deprived him of access to the child, and thus couldn’t be trusted with handling the maintenance amount. “The right of a child to receive maintenance cannot be made dependent upon the outcome of custody or visitation disputes between the parents,” the court noted, adding that it was a matter of independent action.However, the court also declined the wife’s plea for personal maintenance, observing that where a spouse is educated, gainfully employed and earning a substantial and regular income, grant of interim maintenance isn’t an “automatic consequence” merely because the other spouse earns more.
