The Supreme Court of India, in a bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta, has held that the fact that a mother earns an income is not by itself a valid reason to halve a father’s financial obligation toward maintaining his minor children. Setting aside an order of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad that reduced the interim maintenance for two minor daughters from Rs. 30,000 per month each to Rs. 15,000 per month each, the apex court restored the order of the Family Court awarding a total interim maintenance of Rs. 60,000 per month.
Background of the Case
The marriage between the appellant-wife and the respondent-husband was solemnised on June 18, 2006. Two daughters, currently aged about 9 and 8 years, were born during the subsistence of the marriage. The wife also gave birth to a son, who passed away shortly after birth. Following matrimonial acrimony, the appellants left the marital home.
In 2022, the wife and the two minor daughters filed a petition (Case No. 355/2022) under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), seeking maintenance of Rs. 2,50,000 per month from the husband.
The appellant-wife is M.B.B.S., D.G.O. qualified and works as a gynaecologist at a hospital in Greater Noida, earning Rs. 1,50,000 per month. The respondent-husband is M.B.B.S., M.D. qualified and works as a consultant paediatrician at a children’s nursing home, earning Rs. 2,00,000 per month, while the wife contends that he owns his own nursing home.
On October 21, 2024, the Family Court declined interim maintenance to the wife, observing that both parties earn sufficient income and that the purpose of interim maintenance under Section 125 CrPC is to protect a party from unemployment or an immediate inability to meet daily needs. However, noting that the wife bears the educational and upbringing expenses of the two daughters, the Family Court awarded interim maintenance of Rs. 30,000 per month to each daughter until they attain majority.
On a revision petition filed by the husband (Criminal Revision No. 10 of 2025), the Allahabad High Court, vide its order dated February 9, 2026, held that a total sum of Rs. 60,000 per month was sufficient for the children but concluded that the burden could not be placed solely on the husband. The High Court accordingly halved the maintenance to Rs. 15,000 per month for each daughter.
Arguments of the Parties
Before the Supreme Court, counsel for the appellants argued that the High Court erred in reducing the maintenance amount while acknowledging the children’s tender age and needs. It was submitted that the educational and upbringing costs cannot be met by the mother’s income alone, and that the husband earns far in excess of Rs. 2,00,000 per month.
Conversely, counsel for the respondent-husband supported the High Court’s order, submitting that the responsibility to maintain the children rests upon both parents. It was contended that since the wife is gainfully employed and earns Rs. 1,50,000 per month, she is equally placed to bear the expenses, and the Family Court’s award was excessive.
Court’s Analysis
The Supreme Court found itself unable to sustain the High Court’s reasoning, noting that the High Court had given no reason for interfering with the Family Court’s order other than the fact that the wife is also earning. The High Court had neither found the Family Court’s assessment perverse nor considered Rs. 60,000 per month excessive.
Emphasising the non-monetary contribution of the mother looking after the daily needs of the children, the Supreme Court observed:
“That the appellant-wife earns is not, by itself, a reason to halve the father’s liability. The obligation to maintain the children is shared by both parents, but it cannot be divided by arithmetic alone. The daughters live with the appellant-wife, who looks after their daily needs and upbringing while also working. Such care cannot be measured in money, but it is a real contribution, and often the greater one.”
Addressing the father’s financial capacity and the needs of the minor daughters, the Court further noted:
“Even if the wife’s earnings are left out of account, the reduction cannot stand. The respondent-husband is a qualified doctor and on his own showing earns Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only) per month. For two school-going daughters aged about nine and eight years, a sum of Rs.60,000/- (Rupees Sixty Thousand only) per month is not a large amount for a father in his position. Their upbringing and education require as much.”
Decision
The Supreme Court set aside the impugned order of the Allahabad High Court dated February 9, 2026, and restored the Family Court’s order dated October 21, 2024. The Court directed the respondent-husband to pay any outstanding arrears to the appellant-wife within three months.
The Court clarified that since the proceedings pertain only to interim maintenance, the main application under Section 125 CrPC shall be decided by the Family Court on its own merits without being influenced by the observations made in these interim orders.
Case Details:
Case Title: Sujata Kumari & Ors. v. Rahul Kumar & Anr.
Case No.: Criminal Appeal No. 2215 of 2026
Bench: Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sandeep Mehta
Date: August 20, 2026
