District Court directs Rohit Menon to pay school fees and 20% of rent

The District Court directed Rohit Menon to pay the full ₹46,500 demanded towards the school fees of Tara, the daughter in Nandini Iyer’s custody, and to continue bearing 20% of Iyer’s rent. The court limited Menon’s obligation to those two heads, rather than granting Iyer’s request for ₹35,000 in monthly household support, school-fee contribution and reimbursement of the latest rent shortfall.

The judgment, signed by Judge Divyanth on September 29, 2026, stated that Iyer would not be responsible for Tara’s school fees under the arrangement. It recorded that Iyer was providing Tara’s food, shelter, emotional support and other day-to-day care.

The operative directions were:

Menon must pay the full ₹46,500 towards Tara’s school fees.

Menon must continue to bear 20% of Iyer’s rent.

Menon’s obligation is confined to the school fees and the stated rent share.

• Menon shall pay ₹46,500 towards Tara’s school fees.
• Menon shall continue to pay 20% of Iyer’s rent.
• Iyer is absolved of responsibility for the school fees under the arrangement.

The court found that both parties were under financial strain and were living beyond their means. It held that, because a child was involved, responsibility had to be divided between them.

The judgment placed the school-fee liability on Menon while recognising Iyer’s role as Tara’s custodial parent and day-to-day caregiver. It stated that the arrangement was made because Tara was in Iyer’s custody and Iyer was meeting the child’s daily needs.

The court did not record a quantified finding on Iyer’s income, Menon’s deductions, the full household budget, the duration of the school term, or the alleged rent shortfall. Its order therefore remained limited to the school-fee demand and a 20% rent contribution.

“Both parties appear to be living beyond their means and are each under financial strain.”

Iyer sought an interim monthly household-support payment of ₹35,000, a contribution towards Tara’s pending school fees and reimbursement of the most recent rent shortfall. She said Menon had moved out of their rented Bengaluru flat in February and had promised through WhatsApp to continue handling rent and Tara’s school costs until a new arrangement was reached.

According to Iyer, the monthly rent was ₹28,000 and she had paid it for March and April to preserve the tenancy. She said Menon transferred ₹10,000 on March 8, which she said did not cover even half the rent. She also produced a school demand notice for ₹46,500 for the current term.

Iyer said she worked part-time as a content editor and had irregular income, but did not provide a precise monthly salary or a six-month median income. She also said she could not convert the term school-fee demand into a monthly figure because she did not have proof of the term length, and she could not give a complete annual average of school payments.

Menon said he left the flat after repeated conflict and had warned Iyer that the rent was too high for maintaining two households. He said he had offered to help find a smaller nearby flat, made direct payments towards Tara’s school expenses and sent transfers when he could.

Menon stated that his gross monthly income was about ₹78,000 before deductions. He said his take-home pay was in the low ₹60,000s, subject to varying deductions for loan repayment and insurance. He sought a lower interim amount, credit for direct payments and relief from responsibility for rent he said Iyer had chosen without agreement.

The dispute concerned financial support after Menon moved out of the rented Bengaluru flat shared with Iyer and Tara. Iyer said she was unable to meet rent, groceries, transport and school costs alone; Menon maintained that Iyer was treating household expenses as his sole responsibility while declining practical alternatives.

During the hearing, the parties disputed the available evidence on Iyer’s earnings and the monthly equivalent of Tara’s school fees. Several objections were sustained when questions sought precise figures not supported by the material before the court.

The recorded outcome resolves the stated school-fee demand and fixes Menon’s rent contribution at 20%. It does not award the requested ₹35,000 monthly household-support amount or record reimbursement of the claimed rent shortfall.

“The defendant’s obligation is limited to payment of Tara’s school fees and the stated share of rent.”