Can a father be ordered to continue an ₹11 lakh fixed deposit and also pay separate monthly maintenance for the same child? The Calcutta High Court has clarified how courts must prevent overlapping financial burdens while protecting the child’s needs.
KOLKATA: The Calcutta High Court has held that a father should not be forced to maintain an ₹11 lakh fixed deposit for his minor child while also paying separate monthly child maintenance under a fresh order.
Justice Chaitali Chatterjee (Das) partly allowed a revision petition filed by a woman against an order passed by the Judicial Magistrate at Kalyani. The Magistrate had refused monthly maintenance to the woman and her child but directed the husband to hand over an ₹11 lakh bank fixed deposit made in the minor son’s name.
The couple married on November 21, 2016, and their son was born on December 18, 2019. After matrimonial disputes arose, the woman filed a complaint under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and also approached the court under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
She demanded ₹30,000 per month for herself and ₹20,000 per month for the child. During the interim stage, the Magistrate directed the husband to pay ₹10,000 per month for the son, along with arrears. However, while deciding the main maintenance case in October 2022, the Magistrate rejected monthly maintenance for both and instead directed the husband to provide the ₹11 lakh fixed deposit as financial security for the child.
Before the High Court, the woman argued that her income alone was not enough to maintain herself and the child. She submitted a chart claiming that the child’s expenses between 2023 and 2025 were ₹4,81,342, of which the husband had allegedly paid ₹3,70,490, leaving ₹1,10,850 unpaid.
The husband disputed the expense chart and argued that it was not supported by proper receipts, invoices, bank statements or other documentary evidence. Importantly, the chart and related school documents had not been produced before the Magistrate who originally decided the maintenance case.
The husband further stated that he had taken a loan to create the ₹11 lakh fixed deposit as directed by the trial court. The deposit was meant to mature in October 2032, when the child would attain majority. It was already earning annual interest of approximately ₹73,774, equivalent to slightly above ₹6,000 per month.
The High Court examined the financial position of both parents. The woman was an MBA and PGDM holder and had worked as an Assistant Manager in different companies. Her salary documents showed a monthly income of ₹55,425. The husband was earning approximately ₹50,000 per month from his employment.
The court found no documentary material proving that the husband owned the family business. The evidence instead showed that his mother was its proprietor. Therefore, additional business income could not be automatically attributed to him merely because it was a family concern.
The Court observed that the financial position of both parties was almost similar and emphasised that both parents are equally responsible for maintaining their child.
It said:
“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.”
The Court also noted that the mother had admitted the child to reputed educational institutions having substantial fees. This indicated that she had sufficient means to contribute towards the child’s expenses. At the same time, the child’s day-to-day needs could not be ignored merely because a large amount had been secured for his future.
Referring to the fixed deposit, the Court observed:
“It goes without saying that after the amount gets matured in the year 19. 10.2032 it would be beneficial for the child and his future expenses are secured.”
However, the High Court clarified that a fixed deposit created for a child’s future cannot, by itself, completely replace regular maintenance required for present expenses.
The Court stated:
“This Court cannot be oblivious of the said aspect though there is no embargo if a father gives any amount as fixed deposit to secure the future interest of the child, but that cannot substitute the monthly maintenance.”
At the same time, the High Court refused to grant personal maintenance to the woman. It noted that she had earlier disclosed that she was employed, but later claimed that she was no longer in service. No proper application or supporting material regarding this alleged change in employment was filed before the High Court.
Accordingly, the Court found no reason to interfere with the rejection of the woman’s own maintenance claim.
The High Court, however, set aside the portion of the Magistrate’s order directing the husband to maintain the ₹11 lakh fixed deposit as the final arrangement for child maintenance. The matter was sent back to the Magistrate for a fresh decision regarding the child’s regular monthly maintenance.
The mother was granted liberty to submit a fresh affidavit with documents proving the child’s actual expenses. The Magistrate was directed to hear both sides and preferably decide the issue within three months.
Until the fresh decision, the mother may withdraw the interest generated from the ₹11 lakh fixed deposit for the child’s regular expenses.
Most importantly, the High Court protected the father against a possible double financial burden. It directed that if regular monthly maintenance is awarded for the child, the father must be permitted to close the existing fixed deposit if he chooses.
The Court specifically directed that:
“the opposite party should not be saddled with both monthly maintenance as well as to continue with the fixed deposit made by the order of learned Magistrate.”
EXPLANATORY TABLE OF LAWS AND SECTION
| Law and Provision | What It Means | Application in This Case |
| Section 125, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 | Provides a summary remedy for maintenance to a wife, child or parent who is unable to maintain themselves. | The woman sought ₹30,000 for herself and ₹20,000 for the minor child under this provision. |
| Section 498A, Indian Penal Code, 1860 | Punished cruelty by a husband or his relatives against a married woman. | The judgment records that the woman had lodged a separate complaint under this section after matrimonial disputes arose. |
| Section 397, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 | Gives revisional courts the power to examine the legality, correctness or propriety of orders passed by subordinate criminal courts. | The High Court examined the Magistrate’s maintenance order in its criminal revisional jurisdiction. |
| Section 401, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 | Defines the High Court’s powers while exercising criminal revision. | The High Court partly interfered with the Magistrate’s order and remanded the child-maintenance issue for fresh consideration. |
| Rajnesh v. Neha, (2021) 2 SCC 324 | Supreme Court judgment laying down guidelines for financial disclosure and determination of maintenance in matrimonial cases. | The woman argued that the judgment did not permit future security through a fixed deposit to replace regular monthly maintenance. |
CASE DETAILS
| Particular | Details |
| Case Title | Poulami Tarafdar (Saha) v. Dibesh Saha |
| Case Number | CRR 146 of 2023 |
| Court | High Court at Calcutta, Appellate Side |
| Jurisdiction | Criminal Revisional Jurisdiction |
| Bench | Justice Chaitali Chatterjee (Das) |
| Neutral Citation | 2026:CHC-AS:1158 |
| Counsel for the Petitioner/Appellant | Mr. Dhrubajyoti Ghosh, Mr. Saibal Mondal and Ms. Sonali Ghosh |
| Counsel for the State | Mr. Balaram Patra and Mr. Suvadip Bhattacharje |
| Date of Hearing | July 24, 2026 |
| Date of Judgment | July 31, 2026 |
KEY TAKEAWAYS
- An earning mother must also share the child’s financial responsibility.
- Unsupported expense claims cannot automatically increase the father’s liability.
- A father should not face both an ₹11 lakh FD burden and separate monthly maintenance.
- A financially independent wife may be denied personal maintenance.
- Unproved family-business income cannot be added to the husband’s earnings.
This Could Change Your Case-Get FREE Legal Advice-Click Here!
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the Indian courts and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of “ShoneeKapoor.com” or its affiliates. This article is intended for informational and educational purposes only. The content provided is not legal advice, and viewers should not act upon this information without seeking professional counsel. Viewer discretion is advised.
