Husband Made an ₹11 Lakh Fixed Deposit, Yet Was Asked to Pay Monthly Child Maintenance? Calcutta High Court Says He Cannot Be Saddled With Both
Case: Poulami Tarafdar (Saha) v. Dibesh Saha, CRR 146 of 2023
Court: High Court at Calcutta
Bench: Justice Chaitali Chatterjee (Das)
Neutral Citation: 2026:CHC-AS:1158
Judgement Date: July 31, 2026
The obligation of a parent to maintain a minor child is a continuing one. But that obligation cannot be converted into a mechanism for imposing overlapping or disproportionate financial liabilities on one parent.
In an important judgement concerning child maintenance, fixed deposits and the financial responsibility of separated parents, the Calcutta High Court has struck a careful balance between two competing considerations: the immediate financial needs of a child and the long-term financial security created for the child’s future.
The Court has made it clear that while a fixed deposit created in the name of a minor child can certainly secure the child’s future, such a deposit does not ordinarily substitute the child’s present maintenance. At the same time, however, a father who has already been compelled to create a substantial fixed deposit for the child cannot automatically be required to continue that deposit indefinitely while also paying a separate monthly maintenance amount, if doing so would result in an unreasonable double financial burden.
The judgement is therefore significant not because the High Court has held that a fixed deposit is equivalent to monthly maintenance—it has expressly rejected that proposition—but because it has recognised that the final financial arrangement must be fair, proportionate and responsive to the actual financial circumstances of both parents.
The judgement arose from a criminal revision petition filed by the mother challenging the maintenance arrangement ordered by the judicial magistrate at Kalyani.
The Calcutta High Court ultimately remanded the question of the child’s regular maintenance for fresh consideration and directed that the father should not be saddled with both obligations simultaneously.
The Central Question Before the High Court
The controversy can be reduced to a deceptively simple question:
Can a court require a father to maintain an ₹11 lakh fixed deposit created for his minor child and, at the same time, impose a separate monthly maintenance obligation upon him for the same child without considering the combined financial burden?
The Calcutta High Court’s answer was essentially that the two forms of financial provision have different purposes, but the court must ensure that their cumulative effect does not become unfair or excessive.
| Financial Provision | Primary Purpose |
|---|---|
| Fixed Deposit | Preserving capital for the child’s future. |
| Monthly Maintenance | Meeting recurring and immediate expenses of raising the child. |
A fixed deposit is principally a mechanism for preserving capital for the child’s future.
Monthly maintenance, on the other hand, addresses recurring and immediate expenses—food, clothing, education, healthcare, transportation and other ordinary requirements of raising a child.
The distinction is important.
A child cannot be expected to live today on money that becomes available only when a fixed deposit matures several years later. Conversely, where a substantial amount has already been locked away for the child’s future, the court must take that circumstance into account when fashioning the overall financial obligation of the parents.
That is precisely the balance which the High Court sought to achieve.
Facts of the Case
The parties married on November 21, 2016.
A son was born from the marriage on December 18, 2019.
Subsequently, matrimonial disputes arose between the parties. The wife initiated proceedings under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and also invoked Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking maintenance.
The wife claimed:
- ₹30,000 per month for herself, and
- ₹20,000 per month for the minor child.
During the interim stage of the proceedings, the magistrate directed the husband to pay ₹10,000 per month towards the maintenance of the son, together with arrears.
However, when the main maintenance proceedings were decided in October 2022, the magistrate took a different approach.
Instead of awarding continuing monthly maintenance to either the wife or child, the magistrate directed the husband to provide an ₹11 lakh fixed deposit in the name of the minor son as financial security for the child.
This order subsequently became the principal subject of challenge before the High Court.
Wife Challenges Rejection of Monthly Maintenance
Before the High Court, the wife contended that her own income was insufficient to maintain herself and the child.
She also placed reliance upon a chart showing expenses allegedly incurred for the child between 2023 and 2025.
According to her calculation, the child’s expenses during that period amounted to approximately:
₹481,342
She claimed that the husband had paid approximately:
₹370,490
leaving an alleged shortfall of approximately:
₹110,850.
The wife therefore contended that the child’s actual recurring expenses demonstrated the necessity of a separate monthly maintenance order.
Husband Disputes the Expense Claims
The husband disputed the expense chart.
His argument was not merely that the claimed expenses were excessive. He also questioned the evidentiary basis of the figures.
According to him, the expenditure chart was not supported by adequate documentary material such as:
- receipts;
- invoices;
- bank statements;
- payment records; or
- other reliable documentary evidence.
There was another important evidentiary difficulty.
The documents concerning the child’s expenses, including school-related material, had not been produced before the magistrate when the original maintenance order was passed.
This became significant because a revisional court ordinarily does not function as a court of first instance for determining factual disputes that require detailed examination of evidence.
The High Court therefore considered it appropriate that the magistrate should reconsider the child’s maintenance after giving both sides an opportunity to place appropriate documentary material on record.
The ₹11 Lakh Fixed Deposit Became the Key Issue
One of the most important facts before the High Court was that the husband had already created an ₹11 lakh fixed deposit for the minor child.
The husband stated that he had even taken a loan to create the deposit pursuant to the magistrate’s order.
The fixed deposit was scheduled to mature on October 19, 2032, approximately when the child would attain majority.
In other words, the deposit was designed principally as a long-term financial security for the child.
The deposit was also earning interest of approximately ₹73,774 annually, which worked out to slightly more than ₹6,000 per month.
The High Court therefore had to consider two distinct aspects:
- the child’s immediate maintenance requirements; and
- the significant future financial security already created through the ₹11 lakh deposit.
Financial Position of Both Parents
The High Court examined the financial circumstances of both parties.
The wife was professionally qualified, holding MBA and PGDM qualifications, and had previously worked as an assistant manager in different companies.
Her salary documents indicated an income of approximately:
₹55,425 per month.
The husband was earning approximately:
₹50,000 per month from his employment.
| Financial Particular | Amount / Position |
|---|---|
| Wife’s monthly income | ₹55,425 |
| Husband’s monthly employment income | ₹50,000 |
| Child’s claimed expenses between 2023 and 2025 | ₹481,342 |
| Amount allegedly paid by husband | ₹370,490 |
| Alleged shortfall | ₹110,850 |
| Fixed deposit created for minor child | ₹11 lakh |
| Annual interest on fixed deposit | Approximately ₹73,774 |
| Fixed deposit maturity date | October 19, 2032 |
Thus, on the material available before the Court, their employment incomes were relatively comparable.
The Court also considered an allegation concerning the husband’s supposed ownership or financial interest in a family business.
However, the evidence did not establish that the husband himself was the proprietor.
The business stood in the name of his mother.
The Court therefore declined to automatically attribute the income of the family business to the husband merely because it was a family concern.
This aspect of the judgement is particularly important in maintenance litigation.
Family Business Does Not Automatically Mean Personal Income
Courts determining maintenance must examine the actual income, assets, earning capacity and financial resources of the person against whom maintenance is claimed.
A mere familial connection with a business cannot, without supporting evidence, establish that the person is its owner or beneficiary.
The burden remains on the party making such an assertion to place appropriate material before the court.
Both Parents Have Equal Responsibility Towards the Child
After examining the financial circumstances, the High Court found that the financial status of both parties was broadly comparable.
The Court reiterated the established principle that both parents are responsible for maintaining their child.
“From the above observation, it is evident that the financial status of both the parties is almost similar, and it is a settled proposition that both the parents are equally liable to maintain their child.”
This is an important clarification.
The legal obligation to maintain a child does not fall exclusively upon the father merely because the parents are separated.
Where both parents have independent means, the child’s financial requirements must ordinarily be considered against the resources and circumstances of both parents.
This does not mean that the court must mechanically divide every expense into two equal halves.
Rather, the court must undertake a realistic assessment of:
- the child’s requirements;
- the income of each parent;
- their earning capacity;
- their financial liabilities;
- their standard of living;
- educational expenditure; and
- other relevant circumstances.
A Fixed Deposit Secures the Future—but Not the Present
The Court made an important distinction concerning the ₹11 lakh fixed deposit.
The deposit was unquestionably beneficial to the child.
The Court observed:
“It goes without saying that after the amount gets matured on 19.10.2032, it would be beneficial for the child and his future expenses to be secured.”
That, however, did not mean that the deposit could completely replace monthly maintenance.
The Court expressly stated:
“There is no embargo if a father gives any amount as a fixed deposit to secure the future interest of the child, but that cannot substitute the monthly maintenance.”
This is arguably the most important legal principle emerging from the judgement.
Why?
Because future security and present maintenance are conceptually different.
Suppose a child requires money today for:
- school fees;
- books;
- tuition;
- medical treatment;
- clothing;
- food;
- transportation; or
- extracurricular activities.
A fixed deposit maturing in 2032 cannot ordinarily meet those immediate expenses.
Therefore, a court cannot simply say:
“An ₹11 lakh FD exists; therefore, no monthly maintenance is necessary.”
The child’s current needs must still be considered.
But Monthly Maintenance Cannot Automatically Be Added on Top of the FD
The other side of the equation is equally important.
The High Court did not hold that once monthly maintenance is ordered, the father must necessarily continue maintaining the ₹11 lakh fixed deposit as an additional and permanent financial obligation.
The court specifically protected the husband against such a result.
It directed that:
“The opposite party should not be saddled with both monthly maintenance and continued with the fixed deposit made by the order of the learned magistrate.”
This is where the judgement strikes its balance.
The Court recognised that a substantial fixed deposit and monthly maintenance serve different purposes, but it also recognised that the financial consequences of both cannot be ignored.
If the magistrate ultimately concludes that monthly maintenance is required, the father must be given an opportunity, if appropriate, to close the existing fixed deposit, rather than being compelled to bear both burdens simultaneously.
Why the High Court Remanded the Matter
The High Court did not itself determine the final monthly amount payable for the child.
Instead, it set aside the portion of the magistrate’s order that treated the ₹11 lakh fixed deposit as the final arrangement and remanded the issue for fresh consideration.
The mother was permitted to file a fresh affidavit supported by documents establishing the child’s actual expenses.
The magistrate was directed to:
- consider the fresh material;
- hear both parties;
- determine the child’s appropriate monthly maintenance; and
- preferably conclude the exercise within three months.
This approach is significant because maintenance is ultimately a fact-sensitive determination.
There is no universal mathematical formula under which every child must receive a predetermined percentage of the father’s income.
The court must examine the individual circumstances of each case.
Interest From the Fixed Deposit Can Be Used for the Child
Pending the fresh decision, the High Court permitted the mother to withdraw the interest generated from the ₹11 lakh fixed deposit for the child’s regular expenses.
This is a practical interim arrangement.
The capital remains protected for the child’s future, while the interest can be utilised for present needs.
It also demonstrates the Court’s attempt to avoid two extremes:
First: leaving the child without adequate present financial support.
Second: imposing overlapping financial obligations on the father.
The Wife’s Personal Maintenance Claim Was Not Accepted
The High Court separately considered the wife’s claim for personal maintenance.
On this issue, the Court did not find sufficient grounds to interfere with the magistrate’s rejection of her claim.
The wife was professionally qualified and had previously disclosed that she was employed.
She subsequently claimed that she was no longer working.
However, according to the Court, there was no proper application supported by adequate material demonstrating the alleged change in her employment status.
This was significant.
A maintenance claim must be determined on the basis of current and properly established financial circumstances, rather than an unsupported assertion regarding loss of employment.
If circumstances genuinely change, a party can approach the appropriate court with the necessary evidence.
But a material change in income or employment should be established through credible documentary material.
Significance of Rajnesh v. Neha
The judgement also needs to be understood against the broader framework laid down by the Supreme Court in Rajnesh v. Neha (2021) 2 SCC 324.
That decision remains one of the most important authorities governing maintenance proceedings in India.
The Supreme Court emphasised the need for proper financial disclosure by parties seeking or resisting maintenance.
The court must have an accurate picture of matters such as:
- income;
- employment;
- assets;
- liabilities;
- bank accounts;
- investments;
- financial obligations;
- standard of living; and
- other relevant resources.
The Calcutta High Court’s approach in the present case is consistent with that broader philosophy: maintenance must be based on evidence and a realistic assessment of the financial circumstances of both sides.
The objective is neither to punish the earning spouse nor to deprive the dependent spouse or child of a reasonable standard of support.
It is to arrive at a fair financial arrangement.
Section 125 CrPC and Child Maintenance
The proceedings in the present case arose under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
Section 125 provides a summary remedy against neglect or refusal to maintain a wife, minor child or parent who is unable to maintain themselves, subject to the statutory requirements.
In the case of a minor child, the focus is fundamentally on ensuring that the child does not suffer because of the breakdown of the parents’ relationship.
The provision is therefore beneficial and preventive in character.
It is not intended to become a source of financial punishment.
The present judgement illustrates this principle well.
The child’s welfare remains central, but the court must simultaneously ensure that the amount imposed upon the parent is founded on evidence and proportionate to the financial realities of the family.
Section 397 and Section 401 CrPC: High Court’s Revisional Jurisdiction
The wife approached the High Court in criminal revisional jurisdiction.
Section 397 CrPC empowers the High Court or Sessions Court to examine the record of proceedings before subordinate criminal courts for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of an order.
Section 401 CrPC sets out the High Court’s powers in exercising that revisional jurisdiction.
The High Court accordingly examined whether the magistrate’s approach to maintenance and the fixed deposit was legally and factually sustainable.
Rather than fixing the child’s maintenance itself without a proper evidentiary exercise, the High Court remitted the issue to the magistrate.
This is procedurally significant because the magistrate is the appropriate forum to examine the additional documents and factual claims concerning the child’s actual expenditure.
The Principle of Proportionality in Maintenance Proceedings
The broader lesson from the judgement is that maintenance must be reasonable and proportionate.
A maintenance order should protect the dependent spouse or child without becoming punitive.
At the same time, the court must not permit a financially stronger parent to avoid his or her obligation by pointing to assets or arrangements that do not meet the child’s immediate needs.
The present case demonstrates both principles.
A Fixed Deposit Cannot Erase Present Maintenance Needs
But equally:
Present Maintenance Cannot Automatically Be Imposed as an Additional Burden While Ignoring a Substantial Existing Financial Security Created for the Child.
The court must consider the entire financial picture.
Education Expenses Must Also Be Examined Carefully
Another noteworthy feature of the judgement was the child’s education.
The child had been admitted to reputed educational institutions involving substantial fees.
The High Court noted that the mother had sufficient means to contribute towards such expenses.
This observation reinforces another important proposition:
A child’s education is the responsibility of both parents, where both have the means to contribute.
The choice of a relatively expensive educational institution cannot automatically result in the entire financial burden being shifted to one parent.
The court must examine the parents’ financial capacities and the circumstances in which the educational expenditure has been incurred.
What This Judgement Does Not Mean
It would be incorrect to interpret this judgement as laying down a blanket rule that:
“A father who creates a fixed deposit for his child does not have to pay maintenance.”
That is not what the Calcutta High Court held.
The judgement expressly recognised that a fixed deposit cannot substitute monthly maintenance.
Equally, the judgement does not establish that every father who creates a fixed deposit can demand its closure whenever monthly maintenance is claimed.
The important point is that the court must fashion one coherent and fair financial arrangement after considering all relevant circumstances.
In the present case, if monthly maintenance is ultimately ordered, the High Court directed that the father should not simultaneously be compelled to maintain the existing fixed deposit.
Key Legal Principles Emerging From the Judgement
The decision in Poulami Tarafdar (Saha) v. Dibesh Saha can be understood through the following principles:
1. Child Maintenance Is a Continuing Obligation
The existence of a future financial investment does not automatically satisfy the child’s present needs.
2. Fixed Deposit and Monthly Maintenance Serve Different Purposes
A fixed deposit primarily secures the child’s future financial interests, while monthly maintenance addresses recurring present expenses.
3. A Fixed Deposit Cannot Automatically Replace Maintenance
The court must separately examine the child’s present requirements.
4. Double Financial Burden Should Be Avoided
A parent should not ordinarily be saddled with both a substantial fixed deposit obligation and a separate monthly maintenance obligation without consideration of the cumulative burden.
5. Both Parents Are Responsible for the Child
Where both parents have sufficient means, both must contribute towards the child’s maintenance.
6. Family Business Income Cannot Automatically Be Attributed to a Spouse
Ownership and income must be established through evidence.
7. Maintenance Claims Must Be Evidence-Based
Expense charts should ideally be supported by receipts, invoices, bank records, school fee records and other reliable documentation.
8. Employment Status Must Be Properly Established
A claim that employment has ended or income has reduced should be supported by appropriate material.
9. The Child’s Welfare Remains Paramount
The court must ensure that the child receives adequate support both now and in the future.
10. Maintenance Orders Must Be Proportionate
The objective is reasonable support, not financial punishment.
Practical Implications for Maintenance Litigation
The judgement has considerable practical importance for matrimonial lawyers and litigants.
For Mothers Seeking Child Maintenance
A claim should ideally be supported by a properly documented statement of actual expenses.
This may include:
- school fees;
- tuition fees;
- medical expenses;
- transport;
- books;
- clothing;
- food;
- extracurricular activities;
- insurance;
- childcare expenses; and
- other recurring expenditure.
A bare expense chart is likely to invite challenge if it is unsupported by documentary evidence.
For Fathers Resisting Excessive Maintenance
The father should place complete financial material before the court, including:
- salary slips;
- income tax returns;
- bank statements;
- loan documents;
- investment details;
- fixed deposits;
- liabilities; and
- other genuine financial commitments.
The existence of a fixed deposit should also be clearly established through the bank’s records.
For Courts Determining Maintenance
The entire financial arrangement should be considered rather than looking at one component in isolation.
The question is not simply:
“How much monthly maintenance should be ordered?”
It is:
“What overall financial arrangement fairly secures the child’s present and future needs while distributing the responsibility between both parents according to their respective means?”
That is the more nuanced approach reflected in the Calcutta High Court’s judgement.
Explanatory Table: Laws and Authorities
| Law / Authority | Legal Principle | Relevance in the Case |
|---|---|---|
| Section 125, CrPC, 1973 | Provides a summary remedy for maintenance of a wife, minor child or parent meeting the statutory requirements. | The wife sought maintenance for herself and the minor child. |
| Section 397, CrPC, 1973 | Provides revisional jurisdiction to examine the legality, correctness and propriety of subordinate criminal court orders. | The High Court examined the magistrate’s maintenance order in revision. |
| Section 401, CrPC, 1973 | Sets out the High Court’s powers in criminal revision. | The High Court partly interfered and remanded the issue of child maintenance. |
| Section 498A, IPC, 1860 | Concerned cruelty by a husband or his relatives against a married woman. | The judgement records the wife’s separate proceedings under this provision. |
| Rajnesh v. Neha, (2021) 2 SCC 324 | Supreme Court guidelines concerning maintenance determination and financial disclosure. | Relevant to assessment of income, assets, liabilities and financial circumstances. |
Case Details
| Particular | Details |
|---|---|
| Case Title | Poulami Tarafdar (Saha) v. Dibesh Saha |
| Case Number | CRR 146 of 2023 |
| Court | High Court at Calcutta |
| Jurisdiction | Criminal Revisional Jurisdiction |
| Bench | Justice Chaitali Chatterjee (Das) |
| Neutral Citation | 2026: CHC-AS: 1158 |
| Date of Hearing | July 24, 2026 |
| Date of Judgement | July 31, 2026 |
| Principal Issue | Child maintenance vis-à-vis an ₹11 lakh fixed deposit |
| Result | Matter concerning regular child maintenance remanded for fresh consideration |
The official Calcutta High Court cause list records independently identify CRR 146/2023 as Poulami Tarafdar (Saha) v. Dibesh Saha.
Conclusion
The Calcutta High Court’s decision in Poulami Tarafdar (Saha) v. Dibesh Saha is a useful reminder that maintenance law is ultimately about balance.
The welfare of the child cannot be compromised merely because one parent has already created a long-term investment. An ₹11 lakh fixed deposit maturing in 2032 may provide meaningful financial security for the child’s future, but it does not pay today’s school fees, medical bills or everyday expenses.
At the same time, the law does not contemplate that a parent should automatically be subjected to two overlapping financial burdens merely because the child is entitled to maintenance.
The correct approach is therefore to examine the complete financial circumstances of both parents, the actual needs of the child, the existing financial security available to the child, and the respective capacity of each parent to contribute.
The High Court’s direction that the father should not be “saddled with both monthly maintenance as well as continue with the fixed deposit” captures the essence of the ruling.
The judgement consequently does not dilute the right of a child to maintenance. Rather, it reinforces a more fundamental principle: child maintenance must be adequate, evidence-based and fair—not punitive, duplicative or disproportionate.
For matrimonial courts, the decision underscores the need to distinguish between future financial security and present maintenance while ensuring that the ultimate arrangement distributes parental responsibility fairly.
For litigants, it sends an equally clear message: both the child’s needs and the parents’ actual financial capacity must be placed before the court through credible evidence.
That is ultimately the most sustainable approach to maintenance jurisprudence—protect the child, recognise the responsibility of both parents, and avoid imposing a financial burden that is disproportionate to the circumstances of the case.
FAQs
1. Can a father be ordered to pay child maintenance while maintaining a fixed deposit?
The Calcutta High Court child maintenance fixed deposit judgement clarifies that a fixed deposit created for a child’s future cannot automatically substitute monthly maintenance. However, the father should not ordinarily be saddled with both a substantial fixed deposit obligation and separate monthly maintenance without the court considering the overall financial burden.
2. Can an ₹11 lakh fixed deposit replace monthly child maintenance?
No. In Poulami Tarafdar (Saha) v. Dibesh Saha, the Calcutta High Court held that a fixed deposit may secure a child’s future financial needs, but it cannot by itself substitute regular monthly maintenance required for the child’s present expenses.
3. Are both parents responsible for paying child maintenance?
Yes. The Calcutta High Court reiterated that both parents are responsible for maintaining their minor child. While determining child maintenance, courts should consider the income, financial capacity, liabilities and circumstances of both parents, rather than automatically placing the entire burden on the father.
4. Can a court order monthly child maintenance if a father has already created an FD for the child?
Yes, a court can consider ordering monthly child maintenance because an FD generally addresses future financial security rather than present expenses. However, the Calcutta High Court child maintenance fixed deposit ruling makes clear that the father should not be required to continue the FD and simultaneously bear an unreasonable additional maintenance burden. The overall financial arrangement must be fair and proportionate.
5. What did the Calcutta High Court decide in Poulami Tarafdar (Saha) v. Dibesh Saha?
In Poulami Tarafdar (Saha) v. Dibesh Saha, CRR 146 of 2023, the Calcutta High Court set aside the arrangement treating the ₹11 lakh fixed deposit as the final child-maintenance arrangement and remanded the issue of regular monthly maintenance to the magistrate. The Court also directed that the father should not be saddled with both monthly maintenance and continuation of the fixed deposit.
Key Takeaways: Calcutta High Court on ₹11 Lakh Fixed Deposit and Child Maintenance
- Calcutta High Court child maintenance fixed deposit ruling: A fixed deposit created for a minor child can secure the child’s future but cannot automatically replace regular monthly child maintenance.
- No double financial burden: The Court held that a father should not ordinarily be saddled with both monthly child maintenance and continuation of an ₹11 lakh fixed deposit without considering the overall financial burden.
- Present needs vs. future security: An FD maturing in the future provides financial security for the child later, whereas monthly maintenance meets immediate expenses such as education, healthcare, food and other necessities.
- Both parents must contribute: The Calcutta High Court reiterated that both parents are responsible for maintaining their minor child, particularly where both have independent income.
- Maintenance depends on financial capacity: Courts must consider the income, assets, liabilities, employment and financial circumstances of both parents before determining child maintenance.
- Family business income must be proved: income from a family-owned business cannot automatically be attributed to a husband merely because he is a member of the family. Ownership and actual income must be established through evidence.
- Child’s expenses should be documented: Claims for school fees, medical expenses and other child-related expenditure should preferably be supported by receipts, invoices, bank statements and other documentary evidence.
- ₹11 lakh FD interest can support present expenses: Pending fresh determination of maintenance, the Court permitted the mother to use the interest generated by the fixed deposit for the child’s regular expenses.
- Fresh assessment of child maintenance: The High Court remanded the issue to the Magistrate for reconsideration after allowing the mother to submit documents establishing the child’s actual expenses.
- Personal maintenance is different from child maintenance: The Court did not grant the mother’s personal maintenance claim, particularly in the absence of adequate material establishing her claimed change in employment and financial circumstances.
- Importance of Rajnesh v. Neha: The judgement reinforces the Supreme Court’s emphasis on financial disclosure and evidence-based determination of maintenance in matrimonial proceedings.
- Core legal principle: The judgement does not mean that an FD eliminates a child’s right to monthly maintenance. It means that courts must create a fair, proportionate and non-duplicative financial arrangement that protects the child’s present and future interests.
Summary
The Calcutta High Court has clarified that an ₹11 lakh fixed deposit created for a minor child cannot automatically replace monthly child maintenance. However, if regular maintenance is awarded, the father should not be unfairly saddled with both monthly maintenance and continuation of the fixed deposit. Courts must consider the child’s present needs, future financial security and the income and financial capacity of both parents before determining maintenance.
️ Need Legal Guidance? Speak to an Experienced Supreme Court Advocate
Adv. Tarun Choudhury
Supreme Court Advocate | 25+ Years of Legal Experience
| 📞 Call: | 9650499965 |
| 💬 WhatsApp: | 8851978611 |
Get Professional Legal Assistance — Call or WhatsApp Today.
Important Links
- Lawyers in India
- Copyright Registration in India
- Caveat Filing in Supreme Court of India
- Mutual Consent Divorce in Delhi NCR: WhatsApp 9650499965
