Father's Maintenance Liability Cannot Be Halved By Arithmetic Alone: SC

Mother's non-monetary contribution towards the daily care and upbringing of minor children is a real and significant factor that prevents the automatic reduction of a father's financial obligation merely because the wife is independently earning.

A Supreme Court bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta restored a Family Court order granting Rs. 30,000 per month each to two minor daughters under Section 125 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, setting aside an Allahabad High Court ruling that had halved the amount to Rs. 15,000 each on the sole ground that the mother was a gainfully employed doctor.

The Court noted that the father, a qualified pediatrician earning Rs. 2,00,000 per month, could well afford the sum of Rs. 60,000 per month for the upbringing and education of his two school-going daughters aged eight and nine years.

The Court has following directions:

"Arrears, if any, shall be paid by the respondent-husband to the appellant-wife, within a period of three months from today."

"The main application under Section 125 CrPC shall be decided on its own merits without being influenced by the findings recorded in the orders under challenge in the present petition."

Evaluating the High Court's mathematical reduction, the Court, in its reasoning, 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."

Background

The marriage between the parties was solemnized on June 18, 2006, and two daughters were born from the wedlock. Following marital discord, the wife left the matrimonial home with the children and filed a petition under Section 125 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in 2022 seeking maintenance. Both spouses are medical professionals the wife earns Rs. 1,50,000 per month as a gynecologist, whereas the husband earns Rs. 2,00,000 per month as a consultant pediatrician.

The Family Court, vide order dated October 21, 2024, declined interim maintenance to the wife owing to her sufficient income, but awarded Rs. 30,000 per month to each of the two minor daughters. On a criminal revision filed by the husband, the Allahabad High Court reduced the interim maintenance to Rs. 15,000 per month per child, holding that the financial burden must be shared equally since the wife was gainfully employed.

Reversing the High Court's decision, the Supreme Court held that the High Court gave no reason for modifying the Family Court's order other than the wife's earnings, despite acknowledging that Rs. 60,000 per month was reasonable for the children's status and needs. Consequently, the apex court allowed the appeal and restored the Family Court's interim award.

Case Details:
Case No.: Criminal Appeal No. of 2026 (Arising out of SLP (Criminal) No.9661 of 2026)
Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 896
Case Title: Sujata Kumari & Ors. v. Rahul Kumar & Anr.

Source: 2026 CaseBase(SC) 808