CRP/2640/2026 of MD.Yasir Hussain Vs Nadeem Husna on 8 September 2026

ORDER

The revision petitioner/husband who is the plaintiff in O.S.No.430 of 2023 challenges the order in I.A.No.01 0f 2025 directing the petitioner to pay 75% of school fees of his minor children amounting to Rs.2,34,150/-.

2. I have heard the elaborate submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent.

3. The revision petitioner filed the suit in OS No.430 of 2023 seeking a declaration that the marriage dated 11.07.2008 between the petitioner and the respondent was dissolved by way of Khula dated 10.06.2023 effected between the petitioner and the respondent and by declaring that the said Khula as valid. Pending the suit, the trial commenced. After trial commenced, the petitioner entered the witness box and was being cross examined. At that juncture, the respondent took out I.A.No.01 0f 2025 stating that she was unable to meet the educational/academic fees of the two minor children and sought for a direction that the school fees of both the children be paid by the petitioner/husband along with private tuition fee of Rs.40,000/-.

4. After enquiry, the learned VI Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Chennai, directed the petitioner to pay Rs.2,34,150/- to the wife or by depositing the same into the bank account of the wife, the details of which were already available with the revision petitioner. Pending this revision, the petitioner has paid a sum of Rs.1,37,000/- in compliance of the conditional order passed this Court. The same is not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner was paying Rs.25,000/- towards maintenance to the respondent/wife every month, in fact, on the first of the succeeding month (maintenance for August 2025 would be paid on the first of September 2025). However, after the interim application came to be filed, demanding the petitioner to pay the school fees, the petitioner has admittedly stopped paying Rs.25,000 from March 2026 onwards. The arrears as on date, i.e., upto August 2026, works out to Rs.1,50,000/-.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that the minor son was originally enrolled in Sri Chaitanya School at Manapakkaam and he was pursuing 9th standard and he was shifted from Sri Chaitanya School to St.Mary School, where presently he is pursuing 10th Standard. It is an admitted fact that he joined St.Mary School in the midst of academic year for standard 9. However, the minor daughter continues to study at Sri Chaitanya School and she is pursuing 11th standard (NEET integrated course). In support of the claim made for educational expenses and tuition fees, certain records and receipts were produced and on the face of the records, I had doubts about the genuineness of the records and therefore, notice was issued to the School authorities to be present with the original records. The Principal of St. Mary’s School, in obedience and compliance with the summons issued, was present today. He was also enquired and the records were also perused. It is stated by the Principal that the notings in the Bonafide certificate were made by the School authorities, only on the request of the respondent/mother, representing that if the same was produced to Charitable Organizations run by Muslim communities, they would get donations to meet the fees to be paid and it is only under the said pretext that the Bonafide certificate contained the fee amount due as well as the van due details.

6. However, the School records confirm that the Van due fees of Rs.14,000/- has been paid and no amount is pending as on date. However, insofar as the uniform fee amounting to Rs.10,455/- is concerned, the school authorities disown the document that has been relied on by the respondent/wife. In fact, it is seen from the document that it is a print out taken from Sri Chaitanya School, Manapakkam, and not relating to St.Mary School. When the child was already admitted to St. Mary School in July 2025, the attempt to include the uniform fees from the website of Sri Chaitanya School, Manapakkam is not appreciated and, in fact, it is a mischievious attempt on the part of the respondent to boost the claim for reimbursement of fees. There is nothing on record to show that the pending fees amount was paid to Sri Chaitanya School, Manapakkam, though it is claimed that Rs.33,600/- was due and payable when the son left the school midway. Though the respondent, who is also present in person, states that the said amount was subsequently paid, no receipt has been produced.

7. In the light of the above, I am inclined to modify the order of the Family Court which directed payment of Rs.2,34,150/- to 1,37,000/- which has already been paid in compliance with the interim orders passed by this Court. Considering that the husband is willing to continue to pay the interim maintenance of Rs.25,000/- every month to the respondent/wife and has also admitted to the fact that from March 2026 he has not paid the amount, the petitioner shall pay Rs.40,000/- per month commencing from 01.10.2026 onwards, till such time the entire arrears upto September 2026 are adjusted/cleared. Thereafter, he shall continue to pay Rs.25,000/- every month subject to final orders in O.S.No.430 of 2023.

8. It is only on account of the non compliance of the conditional order in I.A.No.01/2025, the suit in O.S.No.430 of 2023 came to be dismissed. In fact, challenging the said dismissal order, the petitioner has already filed a first appeal, which is at the SR stage, since there has been a delay in preferring the appeal. However considering that the revision is disposed of and a direction is issued for payment of Rs.25,000/- per month together with Rs.15,000/- additional sum for clearing the backlog arrears payable from March 2026 to September 2026, I am inclined to restore the suit to file. The petitioner shall with draw the Appeal which is in the SR stage, on the file of this Court, in view of the orders passed in this revision petition.

9. It is also made clear that in respect of future academic fees and the educational expenses incurred for both the minor children, the petitioner shall pay/reimburse 50% of the total fees payable for the minor children to the respective schools,.St Mary and Sri Chaitanya School, Manapakkam. To avoid any conflicts in future the said 50% shall be paid directly by the father/petitioner to the respective schools, namely, Sri Chaitanya School, Manapakkam, and St.Mary School, where the daughter and son are respectively studying. To facilitate the petitioner to make such payment, the name of the petitioner and his details shall be given by the respondent so that the School will also send the official mails to the petitioner/ father for the purpose of payment of academic fees for each year for the minor children. The petitioner/father shall pay the 50% within the due date, without causing any embarrassment to the children. The details of the payment gateway shall be provided to the petitioner/father well in advance to enable him to pay the fees without any delay.

10. In view of the above the suit in OS No.430 of 2023 is restored on file and the learned VI Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Chennai shall proceed with the trial of the suit from the stage where it was left, namely, continuation of cross examination of PW1. It is open to both parties to lead oral and documentary evidence, as they may be advised and the Family Court shall dispose of the suit within a period of nine months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

11. It is also brought to my notice by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondent wife is visiting the clinic of the petitioner and creating unnecessary embarrassment for the petitioner. He also states that there is also CCTV footage to evidence the same. The respondent/wife who is present in Court undertakes that she will not visit the clinic of the petitioner in future and any communication between the parties shall be through their counsel alone.

12. After directing the children to interact with the father in the Mediation Centre today, the parties came back and the children are happy interacting with the father. The father also is now amenable to meet the children, but, however, he states that the visitation can be once in a month for now and depending on how things turn, the frequency can be increased.

13. For now, the parties are agreeable that the father would exercise visitation right between 11.00 a.m and 1.00 p.m at Forum Mall, Arcot Road, Chennai on 20.09.2026. The mother shall drop the children at the entrance of the Forum Mall at 11.00 a.m sharp and pick them up at 01.00 p.m. Thereafter, the said visitation right shall be at the same place on the second Sunday of every month commencing from October 2026.

14. It shall be open to the parties to seek for modification of the said visitation right, subject to the interaction and bonding between the father and the children. Both the petitioner and the respondent are at liberty to seek the assistance of their advocate or advocate’s junior to oversee the visitation rights being exercised by the father, in their own interest, without in any manner interfering with the exercise of visitation rights.

15. In the event of the children not being able to come over to Forum Mall on the second Sunday of every month because of their school commitments or otherwise, then, the mother, through her counsel, should intimate to the counsel for the petitioner/father, well in advance.

16. Accordingly, the Civil Revision stands disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. 08-09-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No SLI/SR To The VI Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Chennai.

P.B.BALAJI, J. SLI CRP No. 2640 of 2026 and CMP No.11186 of 2026 08-09-2026