Mother's Income Alone Cannot Halve Father's Duty to Maintain Minor Children, Supreme Court Holds
A Division Bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta restores Rs 30,000 per month per daughter, rejecting arithmetical division of parental obligation.
The Supreme Court on 20 August 2026 set aside an Allahabad High Court order that had halved the interim maintenance payable to two minor daughters solely because their mother was gainfully employed. The Court restored the Family Court's award of Rs 30,000 per month for each daughter — aggregating Rs 60,000 per month — and held that a mother's earning capacity does not, by arithmetic, reduce a father's obligation to maintain his children. The bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta found that the High Court had not identified any perversity in the Family Court's assessment, yet had intervened purely on the ground that the wife also earned. That reasoning, the Court said, could not be sustained.
How the Dispute Reached the Court
The marriage between Sujata Kumari and Rahul Kumar was solemnised on 18 June 2006. Two daughters were born during the marriage; a son born subsequently passed away shortly after birth. The parties grew estranged and the wife left the matrimonial home along with the daughters, who were aged about nine and eight years at the time of the appeal.
In 2022, the wife and daughters filed a petition under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Case No. 355/2022) before the Family Court, seeking maintenance of Rs 2,50,000 per month from the husband. Both parties are medically qualified: the wife holds an M.B.B.S. and D.G.O. and works as a gynaecologist at a hospital in Greater Noida, earning Rs 1,50,000 per month by her own account. The husband, M.B.B.S. and M.D. qualified, stated he earns Rs 2,00,000 per month as a consultant paediatrician at a children's nursing home. The wife disputed this, contending that the husband in fact owns the nursing home.
The Family Court, by order dated 21 October 2024, declined interim maintenance to the wife — on the ground that both parties earn sufficient income and that the purpose of interim maintenance is to protect against unemployment or immediate inability to meet daily needs. It did, however, award Rs 30,000 per month to each of the two daughters from the date of filing until they attain majority, noting that the wife was bearing the daughters' educational and other expenses, a responsibility that equally rests on both parents.
The husband challenged that order in a revision petition before the Allahabad High Court. By its order dated 9 February 2026 in Criminal Revision No. 10 of 2025, the High Court partly allowed the revision and reduced the maintenance to Rs 15,000 per month for each daughter. The wife and daughters then approached the Supreme Court.
What the High Court Did — and Why the Supreme Court Disagreed
The High Court's intervention rested on a single finding: that a sum of Rs 60,000 per month was sufficient for both daughters, but this burden could not be fastened solely on the husband since the wife also earns. It therefore halved the award to Rs 15,000 per daughter per month.
The Supreme Court found this reasoning flawed on its face. The High Court had not concluded that the Family Court's assessment was perverse. Nor had it found Rs 60,000 per month to be an excessive or unreasonable figure given the parties' status. It had in fact accepted that sum as sufficient — yet reduced the father's share purely by dividing it in half.
The Court held that the fact that the appellant-wife earns is not, by itself, a reason to halve the father's liability. While the obligation to maintain children is shared by both parents, the Court said it “cannot be divided by arithmetic alone.” It pointed to a contribution that figures carry no weight for: the daughters live with the mother, who attends to their daily needs and upbringing while also holding down employment. That care, the Court said, is real, and “often the greater one.”
The Father's Financial Position and the Adequacy of Rs 60,000 per Month
The Court also examined whether the amount was reasonable even setting the wife's earnings aside entirely. The husband is a qualified doctor — M.B.B.S. and M.D. — and on his own showing earns Rs 2,00,000 per month. For two school-going daughters aged eight and nine years, the Court found that Rs 60,000 per month is not a large amount for a father in his position. Their education and upbringing require as much.
The Family Court had reached its figure after examining the income affidavits filed by both parties and the expense details furnished by the wife in respect of the daughters' schooling and daily needs. The Supreme Court found that assessment to be correct and said it called for no interference in revision. It expressly noted that the High Court had not identified any error in that exercise.
The Pending Main Petition
The Supreme Court also recorded that the main petition under Section 125 CrPC — Case No. 355/2022 — remains pending adjudication before the Family Court. The present proceedings concerned only the interim maintenance awarded during the pendency of that petition. The Court directed that the main application shall be decided on its own merits, without being influenced by the findings recorded in the orders under challenge in the present appeal.
Order
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the Allahabad High Court's order dated 9 February 2026. The Family Court's order dated 21 October 2024 — awarding Rs 30,000 per month to each of the two daughters as interim maintenance — stands restored. The husband is directed to pay any arrears arising from the reduction made by the High Court within three months from 20 August 2026. All pending applications stand disposed of.