![\"Maintenance](\"https:\/\/static.toiimg.com\/thumb\/msid-131810780,imgsize-4434,width-400,height-225,resizemode-72\/gavel-22222jpeg.jpg\" "\\"Photo")
<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/section>\n<\/div><\/div>\n<\/div>\nNew Delhi:<\/span> A court has ruled that maintenance awarded for a minor cannot be parked in fixed deposits instead of being used for the child\u2019s immediate needs.\u201cMaintenance is intended to meet the present and recurring needs of the child,\u201d additional sessions judge Bhupinder Singh<\/a> said. If the entire amount remains invested, it would \u201cdefeat the very purpose\u201d of such an award, he added.Judge Singh made the observation while deciding cross-appeals against an interim maintenance order. The husband challenged the legal basis of the award, contending that the wife was gainfully employed, while the wife sought separate maintenance for herself, claiming that her husband earned over Rs 1 lakh per month.The dispute arose from a trial court order directing the husband to pay Rs 7,000 per month from the date of filing of the petition till Jan 2021 and Rs 14,000 per month, with an annual increment of 5%, from Feb 2021 till disposal of the petition, towards the maintenance of his minor daughter.The husband argued that the amount was not proportionate to the salaries of the parties and sought to have it diverted to a savings account for the child\u2019s future use. The court rejected the plea.The judge also dismissed the contention that the maintenance amount was disproportionate and the wife\u2019s salary of over Rs 60,000 wasn\u2019t properly considered. \u201cThe custodial parent already contributes through continuous care and supervision. Consequently, a somewhat larger financial contribution from the non-custodial parent, particularly where his income is substantially higher, cannot be regarded as unreasonable,\u201d the court said.Emphasising that a growing child\u2019s requirements extended beyond basic educational expenses, and included food, clothing, healthcare, transportation and other incidental expenses, the court upheld the trial court\u2019s order.It also dismissed the husband\u2019s argument that the wife had deprived him of access to the child, and thus couldn\u2019t be trusted with handling the maintenance amount. \u201cThe right of a child to receive maintenance cannot be made dependent upon the outcome of custody or visitation disputes between the parents,\u201d the court noted, adding that it was a matter of independent action.However, the court also declined the wife\u2019s plea for personal maintenance, observing that where a spouse is educated, gainfully employed and earning a substantial and regular income, grant of interim maintenance isn\u2019t an \u201cautomatic consequence\u201d merely because the other spouse earns more.<\/div>\n