Time & Effort Of Mother Cannot Be Monetarily Valued; Primary Obligation Of Child’s Expenses Rests On Father: Bombay High Court

The Court while enhancing maintenance noted that it is not a mathematical split between parents and must reflect holistic needs of child.

Update: 2026-04-18 12:00 GMT

Justice Urmila Joshi-Phalke, Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench

The Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench has categorically remarked that the time and effort invested by a custodial mother in raising a child cannot be monetarily quantified, while reiterating that the primary obligation to meet a child’s expenses ordinarily rests on the father, particularly where he has greater financial capacity. Accordingly, the Bench allowing the revision, enhanced the maintenance from ₹15,000 per month to ₹30,000 per month.

The Court clarified that maintenance cannot be computed through equal division of expenses between parents, as caregiving responsibilities borne by the custodial parent must be factored into the determination, alongside the child’s holistic needs including education, healthcare, and overall development.

Justice Urmila Joshi-Phalke observed, “The mere fact that the wife is earning does not absolve the husband of his responsibility to maintain his minor children. Admittedly, the respondent is a medical professional and earning handsome amount as a salary i.e. Rs.1,50,000/-. A child for upbringing does not only require money. A lot of time and effort goes in upbringing of the child. It would be incorrect to hold that both the parents are equally responsible for the expenses of the child…”.

“..A mother who has custody of the child not only spends money on the upbringing of the child but also spent substantial time and effort in bringing up the child. One cannot put value to the time and effort put in by the mother in upbringing of the child. No doubt, mother, if she is earning, should also contribute towards the expenses of the child but the expenses cannot be divided equally between the two”, the Bench noted.

Advocate Anant Neware appeared for the applicant and Advocate Amol Jaltare appeared for the respondent.

The applicant, a minor residing with his mother, sought maintenance from his father under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Both parents are medical professionals; however, the mother contended that she was single-handedly managing the child’s upbringing, including educational and day-to-day expenses, while the father, a Senior Medical Officer earning approximately ₹1.5 lakh per month, had not provided adequate financial support. Pertinently, the mother was also drawing a salary approximately of ₹70,000 per month.

The Family Court had awarded ₹15,000 per month towards maintenance, therefore, challenging the adequacy of the amount, the applicant sought enhancement, arguing that the quantum failed to reflect the father’s income and the increasing needs of a growing child.

In its analysis, the Court noted that maintenance under Section 125 CrPC is a measure of social justice intended to prevent destitution and ensure a dignified life for children. It held that a child’s needs are not limited to basic sustenance but extend to education, extracurricular activities, medical care, and social development.

Rejecting a formulaic or arithmetic approach, the Court held that maintenance must be determined through a contextual and case-specific assessment, keeping the child’s best interests at the forefront.

“Thus, maintenance cannot be determined by applying rigid arithmetic standards. One cannot determine maintenance by applying any arithmetical formula. There is no fixed percentage or rigid calculation that can universally apply to all cases. Every family is different, each situation is unique, and practical realities must guide the exercise of the Court's discretion. What may be adequate in one case may be wholly insufficient in another. It is, therefore, important for the Court to adopt a contextual, case-specific approach while keeping the best interests of the child at the core”, it noted.

“The law of maintenance, while being applied by a Court of law, cannot be treated as a mere contest between two parties as to who earns less on paper, but requires an overall and holistic assessment as to who is bearing the real burden of upbringing, sustenance, and needs of growing children, as compared to one who is prima facie and evidently shouldering his responsibilities and shirking his responsibility by misleading the Court”, it noted further.

Allowing the revision, the Court enhanced the maintenance to ₹30,000 per month, payable from the date of the application, i.e., 07 December 2016, until the child attains independence. The father was further directed to pay ₹10,000 towards litigation expenses.