A husband challenged a Family Court order directing him to pay his daughter's annual academic fees despite her being a major. Relying on precedent that a father's obligation continues while a child pursues higher education and remains dependent, the court found no perversity and dismissed the revision petition.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
$~67
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
BINOD KUMAR GOSWAMI .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Kunal Vishistha and Ms. Dunika Joshi, Advocates.
versus
SHARDA GOSWAMI .....Respondent
Through: None.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA
O R D E R
%
21.04.2025
2.1 The Petitioner and the Respondent married on 27th May, 1994 and from this marriage, have three daughters. Over time, owing to personal and temperamental differences, the parties began living separately.
2.2 The Respondent thereafter instituted proceedings before the Family Court under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 19732 seeking maintenance. By an order dated 1st June, 2023, the Family Court awarded her interim monthly maintenance of ₹15,000.
1 “BNSS”
2 “Cr.P.C.”
This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 23/04/2025 at 11:48:22
2.3 Subsequently, the Respondent moved an application seeking a direction to the Petitioner to deposit ₹1,37,500 into her bank account towards reimbursement of the annual academic fees for the 2024–2025 session, incurred for their daughter, Ms. Pratiksha Goswami, who is presently pursuing a B.Tech. degree at Indira Gandhi Technical University for Women. It was contended that the Petitioner, being the father, was liable to contribute to the educational expenses, even though the daughter had attained the age of majority.
2.4 The Family Court, vide the impugned order, directed the Petitioner to pay the aforesaid amount to the Respondent.
2.5 Aggrieved, the Petitioner has invoked the revisional jurisdiction of this Court, seeking setting aside of the aforesaid impugned order. 3. Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner is employed as a Constable with the Border Security Force, and is already supporting the educational needs of his other two daughters. It is contended that he continues to pay ₹15,000 per month towards maintenance to the Respondent and had, even prior to the dispute, created fixed deposits amounting to ₹5,00,000, which could be utilised by the Respondent for academic expenses. He further argues that as per prevailing government policy, educational reimbursements are permissible only for two children, and therefore, the direction to bear the full annual fee of the third daughter, Ms. Pratiksha Goswami, is arbitrary and imposes an undue financial burden.
This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 23/04/2025 at 11:48:22
income other than the maintenance of ₹15,000 per month, an amount that is evidently inadequate to cover her educational costs. This Court, in the case of Zahir Abdullah & Anr. v. Omar Abdullah ,3 has held that the obligation of a father to provide for his children does not cease merely upon their attaining the age of majority, particularly when they are pursuing higher education and are not financially self-sufficient.
SANJEEV NARULA, J
APRIL 21, 2025 nk
3 2023 SCC OnLine Del 5341.
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 23/04/2025 at 11:48:22
2 issues framed by the court
Should the father reimburse the daughter's higher education fees even after she attained majority?
Does the Family Court's order directing payment of ₹1,37,500 for education warrant revision?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Zahir Abdullah & Anr. v. Omar AbdullahRelied on¶4
2023 SCC OnLine Del 5341 · Who else cites this
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Binod Kumar Goswami
Sharda Goswami
Sanjeev Narula
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
