Obligation To Maintain Children Shared By Both Parents; Father’s Liability Won’t Be Half Merely Because Mother Is Earning: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court was considering an appeal filed by a woman and her two minor daughters against an order of the Allahabad High Court.
Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sandeep Mehta, Supreme Court
While setting aside an order of the Allahabad High Court awarding reduced maintenance to two minor daughters, the Supreme Court has held that the obligation to maintain the children is shared by both parents and merely because the wife is earning cannot be a reason to bring down the father’s liability by half.
The Apex Court was considering an appeal filed by a woman and her two minor daughters against an order of the Allahabad High Court.
The Division Bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta held, “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 .”
AOR Mimansak Bhardwaj represented the Appellant while AOR Manju Jetley represented the Respondent.
Factual Background
The marriage between the appellant-wife and the respondent-husband was solemnised in 2006. During the subsistence of the marriage, two daughters were born to the parties. The appellant-wife also gave birth to a son, who unfortunately passed away shortly thereafter. Troubles arose in the marriage, and acrimony grew between the parties, leading to the appellants leaving the marital home. In 2022, the appellants filed a petition under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), seeking maintenance of Rs 2,50,000 per month from the respondent-husband/father. The appellant-wife is M.B.B.S., D.G.O. qualified and practices as a gynaecologist. She stated that she earns Rs.1,50,000 per month working at a hospital in Greater Noida.
The respondent-husband described himself as M.B.B.S., M.D. qualified and stated that he earns Rs 2 lakh per month working as a consultant paediatrician at a children's nursing home. The appellant-wife claimed that the respondent-husband owned his own nursing home. The Family Court awarded interim maintenance only in respect of the two minor daughters, awarding Rs 30,000 per month to each of them during the pendency of the maintenance petition, and declined interim maintenance to the appellant-wife. The respondent-husband filed a revision petition against the said order before the High Court. The High Court partly allowed the revision petition and reduced the interim maintenance from Rs 30,000 per month to Rs 15,000 per month for each of the daughters. Aggrieved thereby, the appellants approached the Apex Court.
Reasoning
On a perusal of the impugned order of the High Court, the Bench stated that the same did not contain any reason for interfering with the order of the Family Court other than the fact that the appellant-wife was also earning. “The High Court did not find the assessment of the Family Court to be perverse, nor did it find the sum of Rs.60,000/- (Rupees Sixty Thousand only) per month to be excessive. It in fact held that sum to be sufficient for the two daughters, having regard to the status of their parents. Nothing else was said by the High Court while modifying the Family Court’s order”, it added
Considering that the husband is a qualified doctor and on his own showing earns Rs 2 lakh per month, the Bench stated, “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.”
According to the Bench, the Family Court correctly appreciated the status of the parties and the needs of the two minor daughters after considering the income affidavits and the expenses placed before it. “We find the award of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand only) per month to each daughter, aggregating to Rs.60,000/- (Rupees Sixty Thousand only) per month by way of interim maintenance, to be just and reasonable, and calling for no interference in revision”, it held.
Taking note of the fact that the main petition under Section 125 of the CrPC was still pending adjudication before the Family Court, and the proceedings concerned only interim maintenance, the Bench found no ground to interfere with the quantum determined by the Family Court.
Thus, allowing the appeal and setting aside the order of the High Court, the Bench ordered, “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.”
Cause Title: A v. B (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 896)
Appearance
Appellant: AOR Mimansak Bhardwaj, Advocates Mk Pandey, Vidya Mishra, Rahul Pal, Subham Pal, Mayank Kaushik, Akshay Panwar
Respondent: AOR Manju Jetley, AOR Vijendra Singh, Advocates Aniket Tiwari, Apurva Singh