HC frowns on tuition, classes for kids
Upset with the current trend of keeping children busy throughout the day with tuitions and classes, the Bombay high court on Friday said that “something is seriously wrong somewhere”. Kanchan Chaudhari reports.mumbai Updated: Feb 16, 2013 00:47 IST
Upset with the current trend of keeping children busy throughout the day with tuitions and classes, the Bombay high court on Friday said that “something is seriously wrong somewhere”.
A division bench of justice Naresh Patil and justice AR Joshi was hearing the plea of a woman challenging the decree of divorce issued by the Bandra family court on a petition filed by her husband, and also seeking enhancement in maintenance being paid to her.
“Why should a child studying in Class 2 be sent for tuition classes?” the bench asked after the petitioner’s counsel, advocate Vaibhav Patankar, pointed out that the child attended tuition, computer and karate classes every day.
“What kind of competition is this and where is it going to lead the child?” the judges questioned when Patankar pointed out that children today are required to go through the painful schedule for staying ahead in competition.
The estranged couple has been embroiled in a legal battle since 2008, when the husband, a Santacruz (East) resident, moved the family court seeking decree of divorce on various grounds, including cruelty.
In February 2011, while allowing his petition and issuing decree of divorce, the family court directed him to pay the woman and the child monthly maintenance of Rs.1,500 each.
However, the 30-year-old woman, who works as a house help, challenged the decree and sought enhanced monthly maintenance of Rs.15,000 for herself and Rs.5,000 for their eight-year-old boy.
She contended that she spent Rs15,000 a month on essential items and on education and other classes of the child.
The husband’s counsel Kuldeep Patil pointed out that the man was working as an office boy in a private firm and earned Rs7,200 a month. Patil said it was not possible for his client to pay any additional maintenance.
The bench has, however, directed him to consider enhancing the interim maintenance.