A mother’s daily care for her children counts too: Supreme Court on why her income, by itself, cannot halve father’s liability to maintain

Supreme Court: In a significant judgment examining whether the fact that the mother was gainfully employed could, by itself, justify reducing the father’s contribution towards the interim maintenance of their minor daughters, the Division Bench of Vikram Nath* and Sandeep Mehta, JJ., held that “wife earns is not, by itself, a reason to halve the father’s liability” as the obligation to maintain the children is shared by both parents, it “cannot be divided by arithmetic alone”. Accordingly, the Court restored the Family Court’s award of ₹30,000 per month to each daughter, emphasising their needs, the father’s earning capacity, and the mother’s substantial contribution towards their daily care and upbringing.

Also Read: “Father can’t discriminate between educational expenses of son and daughter”: MP HC enhances maintenance granted to government servant’s wife and daughter

Background

The appellant-wife and respondent-husband were married on 18 June 2006. 2 daughters were born from the marriage, aged about 9 and 8 years at the relevant time. The wife had also given birth to a son, who unfortunately died shortly after birth. Owing to matrimonial discord and growing acrimony, the wife and daughters left the matrimonial home.

In 2022, the wife and her 2 daughters instituted proceedings under Section 125, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC), seeking maintenance of ₹2,50,000 per month from the husband/father. The wife is an MBBS, DGO qualified gynaecologist and stated that she earned ₹1,50,000 per month from her employment at a hospital in Greater Noida. The husband, also a qualified doctor, stated that he earned ₹2,00,000 per month as a consultant paediatrician, although the wife alleged that he owned his own nursing home.

The Family Court, by order dated 21 October 2024, declined interim maintenance to the wife, considering that both parties were earning sufficient income. However, it awarded ₹30,000 per month to each daughter, i.e. ₹60,000 in aggregate, during the pendency of the maintenance proceedings. The award was based, inter alia, on the educational and other expenses of the daughters and the fact that the wife was bearing their expenses.
The husband challenged the order before the Allahabad High Court. The High Court accepted that ₹60,000 per month would be sufficient for both daughters but held that the entire burden could not be placed upon the husband because the wife was also earning. It consequently reduced the amount to ₹15,000 per month for each daughter.

Aggrieved, the wife and daughters approached the Supreme Court.

Issue for Determination

Whether the High Court was justified in reducing the interim maintenance awarded to the 2 minor daughters from ₹30,000 each per month to ₹15,000 each merely because the mother was herself earning ₹1,50,000 per month?

Analysis

The Court found the High Court’s reasoning unsustainable. It noted that the High Court had not found the Family Court’s assessment to be perverse, nor had it held that ₹60,000 per month was excessive. On the contrary, it had itself considered ₹60,000 sufficient for the 2 daughters, having regard to the status of their parents. It only stated that the basis for reducing the award was that the wife was also earning.

The Court asserted that the mother’s income, by itself, could not justify halving the father’s liability. While the obligation to maintain children is shared by both parents, the Court emphasised that “it cannot be divided by arithmetic alone”. The daughters were living with their mother, who was attending to their daily needs and upbringing while simultaneously working. The Court recognised this as a genuine contribution which “cannot be measured in money”, but nevertheless constitutes a real, and often greater, contribution towards the children’s welfare.

The Court further held that even if the wife’s earnings were completely excluded from consideration, the reduction could not be sustained. The husband himself disclosed an income of ₹2,00,000 per month. Considering the daughters’ young age, their schooling and their parents’ status, the Court held that ₹60,000 per month was not an excessive amount for their maintenance.

The Court also endorsed the approach adopted by the Family Court, which had considered the parties’ status, their income affidavits and the expenses produced before it. It held that ₹30,000 per month for each daughter, aggregating to ₹60,000 per month, was “just and reasonable.”

Decision

Accordingly, the Court:

1. Set aside the Allahabad High Court’s order dated 9 February 2026.

2. Restored the Family Court’s order dated 21 October 2024.

3. Directed the husband to pay any arrears to the wife within 3 months.

4. Clarified that the proceedings before the Family Court under Section 125 CrPC were still pending and that the main petition would have to be decided independently on its own merits.

5. Directed that the main application should not be influenced by the findings recorded in the orders challenged before the Supreme Court.

Also Read: Working mothers can’t be compelled exhaust themselves while fathers evade responsibility of their Children: Delhi High Court

[Sujata Kumari v. Rahul Kumar, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 1675, decided on 20-8-2026]

*Judgment Authored by Justice Vikram Nath

Advocates who appeared in this case:

For the Appellants: Mr. Mimansak Bhardwaj, AOR, Mr. Mk Pandey, Adv., Ms. Vidya Mishra, Adv., Mr. Rahul Pal, Adv., Mr. Subham Pal, Adv., Mr. Mayank Kaushik, Adv., Mr. Akshay Panwar, Adv.

For the Respondents: Ms. Manju Jetley, AOR, Dr. Vijendra Singh, AOR, Mr. Aniket Tiwari, Adv., Ms. Apurva Singh, Adv.