In most separated households the single largest child-related outflow is education — and it is also the least stable, rising with every academic year and every new requirement the school notifies. A maintenance order that folds education into one consolidated monthly figure tends to be outdated within a year. Delhi’s family courts therefore increasingly treat education as a distinct head of child maintenance: quantified from actual fee records, sometimes paid directly to the institution, and structured to absorb escalation. This explainer sets out the legal foundation and the drafting choices on both sides.
The legal foundation
Four statutes converge on the same principle. Section 144 BNSS gives a summary remedy for a minor child unable to maintain itself, and the jurisprudence under its predecessor consistently read “maintenance” to embrace schooling appropriate to the family’s standard of living. Section 26 of the Hindu Marriage Act empowers the matrimonial court to make orders for the “custody, maintenance and education” of children — education named expressly. Section 20 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act defines maintenance for a child to include education, and Section 20 of the DV Act adds monetary relief for the children of an aggrieved woman. The Supreme Court’s guidelines in Rajnesh v. Neha direct courts fixing quantum to account for the reasonable educational needs of children — including, where the family’s standing supports it, private schooling, coaching and extracurricular development.
Structuring the education head
Consolidated monthly award
Simple to administer, but brittle: fee hikes, annual charges and one-time demands (admission, uniforms, devices) outrun a flat figure. Suitable where fees are modest and stable.
Separate education head
Monthly maintenance for routine needs plus education as its own component — actuals against receipts, a fixed proportion of fees, or the whole fee demand. Tracks reality and survives escalation.
Direct payment to school
The paying parent remits fees directly to the institution. Removes the friction of reimbursement, gives the payer proof of application of funds, and protects the child from inter-parental default disputes.
Interim orders can adopt the same structure. At the Section 144 BNSS or Section 24/26 HMA interim stage, courts in Delhi frequently direct that admitted school fees be paid or continued by the earning parent while the monthly quantum is contested — schooling is treated as a continuity item, not a bargaining chip.
What each side should prepare
Recurring disputes and how courts resolve them
| Dispute | Usual judicial approach |
|---|---|
| Unilateral admission to an expensive school | Standard of living and prior schooling pattern govern; consultation matters, but a child’s continuity in an existing school is rarely disturbed |
| Coaching and extracurricular costs | Allowed where consistent with the family’s standing and the child’s established pursuits; proved by invoices, not estimates |
| Claims without receipts | Courts scale down; documented actuals anchor the head |
| Default in fee payment | Enforcement under Section 144(3) BNSS machinery and execution; direct-payment restructuring often follows repeated default |
The alteration safety valve
Education costs change faster than most orders anticipate — a board-year jump, a new school after relocation, professional-course fees on the horizon. Section 146 BNSS permits alteration of maintenance on proof of a change in circumstances, and a documented fee escalation is among the cleanest such proofs. Parents on either side should calendar the review rather than absorb (or impose) an unsustainable position for years.
Drafting essentials: name education as a separate head; fix it to documents; provide for escalation; specify the payment mechanism; and keep the child’s continuity of schooling outside the theatre of the parents’ dispute.
This article is for general information only and is not legal advice. Quantum and structure depend on the income record and the child’s circumstances in each case.
Frequently Asked Questions
Under which provisions can a child’s education expenses be claimed?
Section 144 BNSS (formerly Section 125 CrPC) covers a minor child’s maintenance, which courts read to include education; Section 26 HMA permits orders for the education of children in matrimonial proceedings; Section 20 HAMA obliges a Hindu father and mother to maintain children, expressly including education; and Section 20(2) of the DV Act covers monetary relief for the aggrieved person and her children.
Are school fees awarded over and above monthly maintenance?
Frequently, yes. Courts commonly fix a monthly sum for food, clothing, lodging and routine needs, and deal with tuition and annual charges as a separate head — either as a reimbursement obligation against receipts or by directing payment of a defined percentage or the whole of the fees.
How is fee escalation handled?
By formula rather than fresh litigation: orders may tie the education head to the school’s actual fee demand from time to time, or provide an annual percentage step-up. Absent such a clause, the remedy is an alteration application under Section 146 BNSS on proof of changed circumstances.
What evidence should the claiming parent file?
The fee book or school demand letters, receipts for the preceding sessions, transport and book bills, coaching invoices, and the child’s admission record. The paying parent’s capacity is tested through the income and asset affidavits mandated by the Supreme Court’s maintenance guidelines in Rajnesh v. Neha.