Recently, the Delhi High Court upheld a substantial interim maintenance award of ₹3.25 lakhs and directed the use of an advanced cochlear implant for a specially-abled minor child, while reiterating that courts must prioritize the welfare of a child over mere cost considerations. The matter arose in a matrimonial dispute involving cross-appeals under Sections 24 and 26 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, where the husband challenged the quantum of maintenance and the cost burden of medical treatment, while the wife sought better healthcare for the minor. Emphasising the parens patriae role of courts, the High Court observed that “in matters involving medical decisions for a minor, courts must give primacy to expert opinion and the welfare of the child, not mere cost considerations.”
Brief facts:
The parties were married in 2015 and have a son born in 2017, diagnosed with Congenital Rubella Syndrome, resulting in both auditory and visual impairments. They began living separately in 2018, and the husband filed for divorce. During the pendency of those proceedings, the wife moved an application under Sections 24 and 26 of the Hindu Marriage Act seeking interim maintenance for herself and the child.
The learned Family Court awarded ₹1,00,000 per month to the wife and ₹2,25,000 per month for the minor child. The Court also directed that the child undergo cochlear implant surgery at AIIMS, with the cost of surgery to be shared in a 75:25 ratio between the husband and the wife. Dissatisfied, the husband challenged the interim maintenance amount and the surgery cost-sharing order, while the wife assailed the direction to use a basic implant model and contested the financial burden placed on her.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The appellant contended that the Family Court erred in awarding an exorbitant amount as interim maintenance, ₹1,00,000 for the wife and ₹2,25,000 for the minor child, when his actual income was ₹92,327 per month as per his income tax returns. He submitted that the Court had ignored the debit entries and liabilities in his bank account and wrongly relied only on credit entries, contrary to settled principles laid down in Sapna Paul v. Rohin Paul.
It was further argued that any rental income alleged by the respondent was from properties owned by his parents and not himself. The appellant also accused the respondent of concealing material facts, such as her earnings of ₹70,000 per month and receipt of ₹29,88,227 from the sale of a jointly owned flat. These, he claimed, should have been considered to deny or reduce the award of maintenance.
Regarding the child’s surgery, he submitted that the cost cited by the wife, ₹36.42 lakhs, was inflated and unsupported. He obtained a lower estimate of ₹23,74,996 from BLK Max Hospital and asserted that the Family Court’s direction to bear such a disproportionate cost was unreasonable and exceeded his financial capacity.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The respondent argued that the appellant had not complied with the Family Court’s order and continued to lead a luxurious lifestyle, even while alleging financial distress. She submitted that he held 29,965 shares and a managerial position in M/s Kinetic Construction Pvt. Ltd., with monthly investments indicating an actual income of around ₹5,00,000 per month.
She pointed out that during marriage negotiations, the appellant had himself disclosed his income to be in the range of ₹1–5 crores per annum. The respondent further argued that the appellant's estimate for the child’s surgery was vague and lacked details on the implant model. She supported the recommendations of the treating expert who consistently advised the use of a high-quality, MRI-compatible cochlear implant in light of the child’s ongoing medical needs.
Observations of the Court:
The Court, in its detailed judgment, dealt with two primary questions: the correctness of the interim maintenance award and the propriety of the direction concerning the child’s medical treatment.
On the issue of maintenance, the Court noted that the appellant’s income tax returns could not be treated as conclusive evidence of his financial capacity. The Court observed that, “ITRs though relevant are not determinative when other material points to a higher standard of living and access to funds.” It pointed to frequent high-value credits in the appellant’s bank account, his undisputed managerial role in a private company, significant shareholdings, and investment patterns. The Court further remarked that, “His travel history and social media profile suggest a consistently luxurious lifestyle, contradicting his claims of financial hardship.”
Relying on the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Rajnesh v. Neha, the Court stated that, “Maintenance must be fair, just, and based on a holistic view of the parties’ financial and personal circumstances.” It held that the wife’s earning potential could not be used to deny her maintenance, particularly when she was unemployed due to the caregiving demands of a specially-abled child. The Court also observed that the proceeds from the sale of the flat should not be treated as income but could at best serve as a financial buffer for the future.
Turning to the issue of medical care, the Court held that the Family Court erred in presuming that the absence of specific recommendations from the AIIMS Board meant endorsement of a basic implant model. It accepted the consistent opinion of Prof. (Dr.) J.M. Hans, who advised the use of a HiRes Ultra 3D Implant with Marvel Sky M90 Kit or its equivalent, which is MRI-compatible and more suited for long-term care of a child with multiple impairments.
The Court made a crucial observation, “In matters involving medical decisions for a minor, courts must give primacy to expert opinion and the welfare of the child, not mere cost considerations.”
The decision of the Court:
The High Court dismissed the husband’s challenge to the interim maintenance and upheld the Family Court’s award of ₹1,00,000 for the wife and ₹2,25,000 for the minor child. It held that the amount was fair, reasonable, and supported by material evidence.
Modifying the direction regarding surgery, the Court directed that the cochlear implant must be of an advanced, MRI-compatible model as recommended by the treating expert. It also directed that the appellant alone shall bear the entire cost of the child’s surgery and post-operative care. In conclusion, the Court reaffirmed that maintenance awards and medical decisions involving children must be guided by fairness, complete financial disclosure, and the paramount interest of the child.
Case Title: Ankit Kapoor vs. Manya Vijh
Case No: MAT.APP.(F.C.) 6/2025 AND CM APPL. 704/2025 & CM APPL. 19239/2025
Coram: Justice Navin Chawla, Justice Renu Bhatnagar
Picture Source :
