Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

17. The learned Family Court, vide an order passed on 07.02.2025, directed a medical examination of the child by a Medical Board at AIIMS and an opinion on the medical condition of the child, implant compatible with his requirements and the estimated cost of surgery was sought. The examination was conducted by a duly constituted Medical Board on 04.03.2025.

18. The AIIMS Medical Board issued its report dated 05.03.2025, confirming the medical requirement for cochlear implant surgery. While the report did not specify any particular model of implant, however, it bore the following remarks:

31. The learned counsel also averred that the expenses and expenditures claimed on account of the child are unexplained and the amount of Rs.2,25,000/- being commuted in this regard is arbitrary.

32. As far as the implant surgery of the child and the direction to share the expenses, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that the learned Family Court acted within its jurisdiction in relying upon the AIIMS report and directing that the cochlear implant surgery of the minor child be carried out at AIIMS using a „basic model implant‟. He further submits that the AIIMS Medical Board examined the child on 04.03.2025 and confirmed the necessity of cochlear implant surgery, without prescribing any particular model.

70. The material on record also indicates that the child has additional neurological vulnerabilities, including the need for MRI surveillance in the future, given the risk of associated Central Nervous System (CNS) complications in cases of Congenital Rubella Syndrome (CRS). This specific medical context renders the choice of implant critical, as basic cochlear implants, which require surgical removal of the internal magnet prior to each MRI, pose a heightened risk of repeated surgical trauma and prolonged auditory deprivation.

85. With the issue of the place and the nature of implant settled, the next question that arises for adjudication before this Court is whether the cost-sharing ratio of 75:25 for the surgery, as fixed by the learned Family Court, requires any modification.

86. The respondent has prayed that the entire cost of the child‟s cochlear implant surgery, amounting to Rs. 36,42,500/-, be directed to be borne solely by the appellant. This prayer rests on two main grounds: first, that the appellant possesses the financial capacity to bear the full cost; and second, that he has willfully failed to contribute toward the child‟s upkeep, with arrears of interim maintenance stated to be in excess of Rs.1 crore as on the date of filing the appeal.