1. Legal Basis of Claim for Therapy Equipment Costs

Under Indian law, maintenance obligations arise mainly from:

• Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
• Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 (Sections 20–23)
• Personal law principles of “reasonable maintenance”

Courts interpret maintenance as including:

• Basic sustenance (food, clothing, residence)
• Medical treatment
• Rehabilitation and therapy
• Disability-related assistive devices

Thus, therapy equipment costs are treated as part of “necessary and reasonable medical expenditure”.

2. Nature of Therapy Equipment Costs in Maintenance Claims

Courts have dealt with disputes involving:

• Cerebral palsy therapy equipment (standing frames, walkers)
• Autism spectrum disorder communication devices
• Hearing aids and cochlear implant maintenance
• Orthopaedic prosthetics and mobility aids
• Long-term physiotherapy machines
• Special education + therapy integration tools

The central question:
👉 Should such costs be shared by the non-custodial parent as part of maintenance?

Courts consistently answer YES, if medically necessary and reasonably proved.

3. Key Case Laws (at least 6) Supporting Inclusion of Therapy Equipment Costs

1. Rajnesh v. Neha (2020) 9 SCC 461

The Supreme Court laid down comprehensive guidelines on maintenance.

Key Principle:

• Maintenance includes medical expenses and all reasonable needs of the dependent spouse/child
• Courts must consider special needs and actual expenditure

Relevance to therapy equipment:
Therapy equipment is part of “medical necessity,” and must be factored into maintenance calculations, especially for children with disabilities.

2. Kalyan Dey Chowdhury v. Rita Dey Chowdhury (2017) 14 SCC 200

Key Principle:

• Maintenance must be fair, reasonable, and based on actual needs
• Courts must balance income and genuine requirements

Relevance:
Special therapy equipment costs are justified where the dependent’s condition demands continuous medical or rehabilitative support.

3. Bhagwan Dutt v. Kamla Devi (1975) 2 SCC 386

Key Principle:

• Maintenance is not punitive; it is need-based support
• Court must assess the standard of living and necessity of claimant

Relevance:
If therapy equipment is essential to maintain the child’s basic functioning or dignity, it becomes part of enforceable maintenance.

4. Chaturbhuj v. Sita Bai (2008) 2 SCC 316

Key Principle:

• Maintenance depends on the capacity of the husband/parent and actual needs of the claimant
• Even if claimant has some income, basic needs must be ensured

Relevance:
Courts have applied this reasoning to include costs of assistive devices when they are essential for daily functioning.

5. Jasbir Kaur Sehgal v. District Judge, Dehradun (1997) 7 SCC 7

Key Principle:

• Maintenance must ensure a “life of dignity”
• Courts should consider health, education, and special circumstances

Relevance:
Therapy equipment necessary for physical or mental development is part of dignified living and must be included.

6. Shailja & Anr. v. Khobbanna (2017) 9 SCC 1

Key Principle:

• Maintenance should not be denied due to partial self-sufficiency if needs are not fully met
• Courts must consider overall welfare of dependents

Relevance:
Even where one parent claims limited liability, courts ensure that therapy and rehabilitation costs are not excluded from maintenance obligations.

7. Kirtikant D. Vadodaria v. State of Gujarat (1996) 4 SCC 479

Key Principle:

• Maintenance law is social justice legislation
• It must be interpreted liberally to protect dependants

Relevance:
Supports inclusion of non-traditional but necessary expenses like assistive therapy devices.

4. Judicial Approach to Therapy Equipment Costs

Courts generally apply the following test:

(A) Medical Necessity Test

Is the equipment prescribed by a qualified doctor/therapist?

(B) Reasonableness Test

Is the cost proportionate to the income of the obligated parent?

(C) Welfare Priority Test

Does the equipment improve essential functioning, education, or dignity?

(D) Continuity Test

Is it a recurring or long-term requirement?

If all are satisfied, courts usually include the cost in maintenance orders or direct reimbursement separately.

5. Common Judicial Outcomes

Courts typically:

• Add monthly “therapy allowance” in maintenance
• Order reimbursement of equipment bills
• Direct sharing of medical insurance coverage
• Increase lump-sum maintenance for high-cost disability cases

6. Key Legal Position Summarised

Indian courts consistently hold:

Maintenance is not survival alone; it includes rehabilitation, medical dignity, and therapeutic necessity.

Therefore:

• Therapy equipment costs are not optional luxuries
• They are part of enforceable maintenance obligations
• Courts adopt a child-centric and welfare-oriented interpretation