A legal guide to school fees in child custody disputes, parents’ financial responsibilities, Supreme Court judgments, and fathers’ legal remedies in India.
NEW DELHI: When a marriage breaks down, the dispute rarely remains limited to divorce or child custody. Questions about school admissions, tuition fees, maintenance, extracurricular activities and educational expenses frequently become another battleground between parents.
In many matrimonial disputes, the father continues paying for the child’s education despite having limited custody or visitation rights. In other cases, the mother bears the child’s daily responsibilities while struggling to secure financial support from the father.
The dispute becomes more complicated when one parent wants to enrol the child in an expensive private school without the other’s agreement.
But does Indian law make the father solely responsible for school fees? Can an earning mother be directed to contribute?
The Supreme Court has addressed these questions through important decisions. While fathers ordinarily bear educational expenses, courts can require financially capable mothers to share the responsibility.
The fundamental principle is that the applicable law, the parents’ financial circumstances, and the child’s welfare determine who is legally responsible for the child’s education—not simply who has custody.
WHO IS LEGALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR PAYING SCHOOL FEES?
Under Indian child maintenance laws, educational expenses form an essential part of a child’s maintenance. This includes school fees, books, uniforms, transportation and other reasonable educational requirements.
However, custody and financial responsibility are two separate legal issues.
A parent with physical custody may manage the child’s schooling and day-to-day needs, but that does not automatically make the custodial parent solely responsible for expenses.
Similarly, a parent who does not have physical custody cannot simply stop paying for the child’s education because the child resides with the other parent.
In Rajnesh v. Neha (2020), the Supreme Court explained that educational expenses should normally be borne by the father. However, if the wife is working and earning sufficiently, the expenses may be shared proportionately.
This means courts can examine both parents’ financial circumstances before setting their respective contributions.
For example, if a father earns ₹1 lakh monthly while the mother earns ₹80,000, the court may consider both incomes, the child’s requirements, existing expenses and caregiving arrangements when determining a reasonable contribution.
There is no automatic rule that the father must pay 100% or that both parents must always contribute 50% each.
The decision depends on the facts and evidence presented before the court.
WHAT DOES INDIAN LAW SAY ABOUT CHILDREN’S SCHOOL FEES?
Indian law recognises education as an essential part of child maintenance, but the responsibility for paying school fees does not depend solely on which parent has custody. Courts consider the child’s educational needs, both parents’ financial capacity and the applicable legal provisions before determining their respective obligations.
Several statutes govern school fees and educational expenses during divorce and child custody disputes.
- Section 26 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
Section 26 empowers courts to pass orders concerning the custody, maintenance and education of minor children during matrimonial proceedings.
Either parent may seek directions regarding school fees, educational expenses and the division of financial responsibility. Courts can also modify existing orders when circumstances change, including changes in parental income or the child’s educational requirements.
The provision further states that, as far as possible, applications concerning children’s maintenance and education during matrimonial proceedings should be decided within 60 days of service of notice.
- Section 20 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956
Section 20 places a legal obligation on both Hindu parents to maintain their minor children. Under Section 3(b), maintenance expressly includes education, food, clothing, residence and medical treatment.
A minor child can claim maintenance from either parent. Therefore, an earning mother is not automatically exempt from contributing towards educational expenses, just as the father’s responsibility does not disappear merely because the mother has custody.
Both parents’ financial circumstances may be considered when determining their contributions.
- Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023
Section 144 BNSS, which replaced Section 125 CrPC under the new procedural framework effective July 1, 2024, provides maintenance remedies for eligible dependent children where a person with sufficient means neglects or refuses to maintain them.
Although the provision does not prescribe a separate or fixed amount for school fees, educational requirements may be considered when determining monthly maintenance.
Proceedings already pending before July 1, 2024, may continue under the previous CrPC framework, subject to Section 531 BNSS.
Other applicable legal provisions
- Section 38 of the Special Marriage Act, 1954 authorises courts to pass orders regarding the custody, maintenance and education of minor children in applicable matrimonial proceedings.
- Section 20 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 provides for monetary relief, including maintenance for children, where the statutory requirements are satisfied.
These provisions operate under different legal frameworks, and their applicability depends on the nature of the proceedings.
A child’s education is a parental responsibility, but Indian law does not impose a universal 50:50 sharing formula. Courts determine the appropriate contribution by considering the applicable law, the child’s needs, both parents’ financial circumstances, and any existing maintenance orders.
A father cannot avoid responsibility merely because he lacks custody, and an earning mother’s financial capacity cannot automatically be ignored.
SUPREME COURT JUDGMENTS ON SCHOOL FEES AND CHILD MAINTENANCE
Indian courts have repeatedly considered whether financial responsibility belongs exclusively to the father or must be shared between earning parents.
The following judgments explain the applicable principles.
- Padmja Sharma v. Ratan Lal| (2000) 4 SCC 266 | March 28, 2000
This landmark judgment directly addressed the financial responsibilities of earning parents towards their minor children.
The wife had obtained a divorce and sought enhancement of maintenance for the couple’s two children.
The husband worked with the Reserve Bank of India, while the wife was employed as a lecturer in a government college.
The dispute reached the Supreme Court after the wife challenged the amount awarded towards the children’s maintenance.
What happened before the Supreme Court?
The Court examined both parents’ salaries and considered Section 20 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act.
It rejected the proposition that the father alone must maintain the children irrespective of the mother’s financial position.
The Supreme Court observed that both parents have an obligation to maintain minor children.
Considering the approximate income ratio, the Court assessed the children’s maintenance at ₹3,000 per child per month, to be shared between the parents in a 2:1 proportion.
The father was directed to contribute ₹2,000 monthly per child for the specified period, apart from the existing amount under Section 125 CrPC.
Why this judgment matters
The judgment establishes that an earning mother’s responsibility cannot be ignored while determining children’s maintenance.
It also clarifies that a maintenance order under Section 26 can be modified when financial circumstances change.Both earning parents may be required to contribute towards their children’s maintenance in proportion to their financial capacity.
- Rajnesh v. Neha| (2021) 2 SCC 324 | November 4, 2020
This judgment remains one of India’s most important authorities on maintenance calculation, financial disclosures and child support.
The Supreme Court issued comprehensive guidelines to address inconsistent maintenance awards and disputes over spouses’ actual financial positions.
The Court explained that child maintenance must account for more than basic survival.
Reasonable expenses may include food, clothing, accommodation, school education, healthcare, coaching and additional activities necessary for the child’s development.
What did the Supreme Court say about school fees?
The Court specifically recognised that educational expenses should normally be borne by the father.
However, it also clarified that if the wife works and earns sufficiently, those expenses may be shared proportionately.
This matters when a mother has a substantial independent income but seeks to shift the entire educational burden to the father.
At the same time, merely proving that the mother is employed does not automatically extinguish the father’s financial responsibility.
What about expensive coaching and extracurricular activities?
The Supreme Court recognised that reasonable coaching and additional educational requirements may form part of child support.
However, such expenses should not be excessively extravagant.
Therefore, a parent may challenge unreasonable demands by producing evidence concerning the child’s actual requirements and the family’s financial circumstances.
The judgment also requires appropriate disclosure of assets, income and liabilities, enabling courts to assess maintenance on a more reliable evidentiary basis.
Educational expenses must be reasonable, and courts can consider both parents’ financial capacity when deciding how they should be shared.
BOMBAY HIGH COURT ON ₹6 LAKH SCHOOL FEES: EXPENSIVE SCHOOLING DOES NOT GUARANTEE BETTER EDUCATION
Sumit Vijay Kumar Jain v. Shraddha Gupta Jain (2018)
This case involved a dispute over expensive private school fees and child maintenance during matrimonial proceedings.
The mother sought to enrol their daughter in JBCN School, charging approximately ₹6 lakh annually, while the father proposed AVM School, with annual fees of around ₹85,000. The mother also sought directions requiring the father to bear the educational expenses.
What did the Bombay High Court observe?
Justice Bharati H. Dangre observed that higher school fees do not necessarily guarantee better education. The Court emphasised educational quality, convenience and proximity to the child’s residence and daycare.
During the proceedings, both parents agreed to jointly identify a suitable school, and the Court recorded their agreement.
The case also involved substantial maintenance demands. The mother claimed ₹1,91,200 per month for the child’s expenses and related household requirements.
After examining the financial circumstances, including the mother’s earnings, the High Court upheld ₹40,000 monthly interim child maintenance, finding that several claimed expenses could not reasonably be attributed exclusively to a three-year-old child.
The Court also recognised the earning mother’s responsibility to contribute towards the child’s upbringing.
Why this judgment matters for fathers?
The ruling demonstrates that courts can scrutinise excessive educational expenses and maintenance demands, rather than automatically accepting every amount claimed. However, it does not establish a fixed ceiling on private school fees.
Legal takeaway: Choosing an expensive school does not automatically make the other parent liable for its entire cost. The child’s welfare, reasonable educational needs and both parents’ financial circumstances must be considered.
DELHI HIGH COURT: WORKING MOTHER’S CONTRIBUTION AND FATHER’S TRUE INCOME BOTH MATTER
Hitesh Makhija v. Ritu Makhija (2025)
The Delhi High Court examined both parents’ financial responsibilities while deciding interim maintenance for their three minor children.
The mother earned about ₹34,500 per month, while the father claimed an income of just ₹9,000. The Trial Court awarded ₹30,000 per month towards the children’s maintenance, which the Sessions Court upheld.
What did the High Court decide?
The Court examined the father’s income-tax returns, qualifications and financial records, finding his claimed income inadequately supported. It assessed his monthly earnings at approximately ₹40,000.
The Court also considered the mother’s income and her responsibility for raising three children. Recognising that both parents must contribute according to their financial capacity and circumstances, it reduced the father’s interim maintenance obligation from ₹30,000 to ₹25,000 monthly.
The Court estimated the mother’s financial contribution at about ₹20,000 monthly, excluding her caregiving responsibilities. The Court did not order a separate payment from her.
Legal takeaway: Courts consider both parents’ earnings and caregiving responsibilities when determining child maintenance. Financial obligations must reflect actual circumstances, not unsupported income claims.
CAN A MOTHER UNILATERALLY CHOOSE AN EXPENSIVE PRIVATE SCHOOL?
Disputes often arise when a custodial parent changes the child’s school and demands higher fees from the other parent.
For instance, if a child previously attended a school charging ₹1 lakh annually and is shifted to one charging ₹4 lakh, can the other parent be compelled to bear the increased expenses?
Not automatically. Courts consider the child’s welfare, both parents’ financial capacity, educational needs and reasons for changing schools. Educational continuity and existing court orders also matter.
The Bombay High Court’s 2018 judgment recognised that higher school fees do not necessarily guarantee better education.
However, the non-custodial parent’s disagreement alone does not invalidate the custodial parent’s school choice. Either parent may approach the court to resolve disputes over school selection and reasonable educational expenses.
ARE SCHOOL FEES INCLUDED IN MONTHLY MAINTENANCE OR PAYABLE SEPARATELY?
This is another frequent source of disagreement.
A father may already be paying ₹30,000 monthly towards child maintenance and may subsequently receive demands for additional school fees, transport, coaching, uniforms and admission charges.
Whether these amounts are separately payable depends primarily on the wording and scope of the existing maintenance order.
Courts may award one consolidated amount covering several expenses or direct specific payments towards education in addition to monthly maintenance.
If school fees are already accounted for within a consolidated maintenance award, that fact is relevant when considering a further claim for the same expenditure.
The Supreme Court’s guidelines in Rajnesh v. Neha also require disclosure of maintenance orders passed in other proceedings and, where appropriate, consideration of adjustment or set-off to address overlapping awards.
Parents should not assume that every additional demand is automatically payable or that a payment can be unilaterally deducted from an existing court order.
Where the position is unclear, the appropriate course is to seek clarification or modification from the court.
An order directing payment of monthly maintenance must be obeyed unless stayed or modified by a competent court.
FATHER PAYS CHILD’S SCHOOL FEES BUT IS DENIED VISITATION RIGHTS: WHAT DOES INDIAN LAW SAY?
Financial responsibility and parental access are legally distinct matters.
A father may pay school fees and maintenance while contesting custody or seeking visitation rights.
However, paying school fees does not automatically entitle a father to physical custody, just as lacking physical custody does not automatically eliminate his maintenance obligations.
Courts determine custody and visitation primarily by considering the child’s welfare.
A parent seeking access to academic information, school events, parent-teacher meetings, or educational decisions should seek appropriate directions from the court, particularly where communication between the parents has broken down.
Similarly, where visitation orders already exist but are being violated, the affected parent may seek enforcement or appropriate modification.
School fees should not become a bargaining tool for visitation, and access to a child should not be treated as a reward for making payments.
The father-child relationship must be addressed through proper custody and visitation proceedings, independently of maintenance disputes.
CAN AN EARNING MOTHER BE DIRECTED TO CONTRIBUTE TO SCHOOL FEES?
Yes, under applicable law and in appropriate circumstances.
The Supreme Court’s decision in Padmja Sharma v. Ratan Lal Sharma establishes that both parents can be financially responsible for maintaining their minor children.
The mother’s custody does not automatically exempt her from contributing if she has sufficient income.
However, courts must also consider whether the custodial parent already bears substantial daily expenses and responsibilities.
A working parent caring for a child may pay for meals, transportation, healthcare, accommodation, and other regular necessities.
The court must consider these contributions alongside the non-custodial parent’s monetary obligations.
Therefore, a mother’s salary is relevant, but it is not the only factor.
The legally sustainable argument is that both parents’ financial circumstances must be fairly examined—not that an employed mother automatically removes the father’s responsibility.
CAN A FATHER REFUSE TO PAY CHILD’S SCHOOL FEES DUE TO FINANCIAL DIFFICULTIES? WHAT DOES INDIAN LAW SAY?
Genuine financial inability to pay school fees differs from deliberately refusing to maintain a child. If a father faces unemployment, serious illness, business losses, or a substantial reduction in income, he can approach the court to seek modification of existing maintenance or educational expense orders.
However, financial hardship must be supported by evidence, including income-tax returns, bank statements, income records and liabilities. As recognised in Rajnesh v. Neha, financial disclosures are essential for determining fair maintenance while protecting the child’s educational needs. A father should seek modification through the court rather than stop paying school fees in violation of an existing order, as non-compliance may attract legal consequences.
LEGAL RIGHTS OF FATHERS IN CHILD CUSTODY DISPUTES: HOW TO CHALLENGE UNREASONABLE SCHOOL FEES
Fathers in disputes over child maintenance and school fees can seek legal remedies to ensure educational expenses are reasonable and assessed fairly.
- Seek disclosure of both parents’ income
Request financial disclosures, including salary slips, income tax returns, bank statements, and liabilities. An earning mother’s financial capacity is relevant when determining contributions.
- Demand proof of school expenses
Seek school fee receipts, admission charges, transport bills and other records to verify actual educational expenses and challenge unsupported demands.
- Challenge unreasonable school fees
If the other parent selects an expensive school, raise concerns regarding affordability, educational quality and the child’s existing schooling before the court.
- Seek clear school-fee payment orders
Request specific directions on tuition fees, transportation, uniforms and other educational costs to prevent confusion and overlapping financial demands.
- Apply for modification of maintenance
If income decreases substantially or circumstances change, seek modification of the existing maintenance order instead of unilaterally stopping payments.
- Protect visitation and educational access rights
If visitation is denied, seek appropriate court directions regarding child access, school records and parent-teacher meetings. School-fee payments and visitation must be addressed through their respective legal remedies.
CONCLUSION
A divorce or child custody dispute does not end either parent’s legal responsibility towards their child’s education. School fees and educational expenses are part of child maintenance, but the financial burden must be determined fairly, considering the child’s needs and both parents’ circumstances.
The Supreme Court’s judgments in Rajnesh v. Neha and Padmja Sharma v. Ratan Lal Sharma establish that while fathers ordinarily bear educational expenses, financially capable mothers may also be required to contribute proportionately.
A father should not be expected to bear unreasonable educational expenses beyond his genuine financial capacity merely because he is the father. Courts must also recognise the custodial parent’s financial and caregiving contributions.
Courts must ensure that educational expenses are reasonable, financial disclosures are transparent, and neither parent is unfairly burdened.
A child’s education is a responsibility, not a weapon in a custody battle. Parental rights deserve protection, financial obligations must be fair, and the child’s welfare must remain paramount.
FAQs
- Who pays school fees when the mother has custody?
The father ordinarily bears educational expenses, but an earning mother may also be required to contribute based on her financial capacity. - Can a working mother be ordered to pay child school fees?
Yes. Courts can direct both earning parents to share reasonable educational expenses proportionately. - Can a father refuse to pay expensive private school fees?
A father can challenge unreasonable school fees in court but must comply with existing payment orders. - Are school fees included in monthly child maintenance?
School fees may be included or ordered separately, depending on the maintenance order and the child’s educational needs. - Can a father stop paying school fees if the mother denies visitation?
No, not in breach of a court order. A father should seek enforcement of visitation rights separately from disputes over school fees.
You May Also Like:
Hindu Marriage Act 1955
How Long Does a Child Custody Case Take in India? Real Timeline, Delays & Legal Strategy
Who Pays Child Maintenance After A Live-In Relationship Ends? Complete Legal Guide 2026
Can A Husband Reduce Maintenance Or Alimony After A Salary Cut? Legal Rights, Court Rulings & Complete Guide 2026