The court explained in the reasoning of its ruling that educational support is obligatory for the financially capable father based on Article 202 of the Personal Status Law, which obliges the father to support his minor children who are unable to earn a living, as well as Article 210, which obligates the guardians to supervise the education of the child in their custody.

The court also based its decision on a well-established principle in cassation rulings, stating that provisions related to public order apply immediately to existing facts, and that any legislative amendment related to mandatory rules is binding on everyone upon its issuance. The court affirmed that Article 40 of the law stipulates that education is the right of all children, that they should not be deprived of it, and that educational guardianship rests with the custodian -- mother, father or guardian.