A Working Mother Does Not Halve the Father's Duty: Supreme Court Restores Rs 30,000 a Month Each for Two Daughters

Case at a Glance

The Supreme Court has set aside an Allahabad High Court order that halved the interim maintenance granted to two daughters from Rs 30,000 to Rs 15,000 a month each because their mother, a gynaecologist, was also earning. It held that the obligation to maintain children is shared by both parents but “cannot be divided by arithmetic alone”, and restored the Family Court's order.

The parties married on 18 June 2006 and have two daughters. After marital discord, the wife and daughters left the matrimonial home and in 2022 the wife filed a petition under Section 125 CrPC seeking Rs 2,50,000 a month. The wife, a gynaecologist, claims an income of Rs 1,50,000 a month; the husband, a paediatrician, claims Rs 2,00,000, while the wife alleges he owns a nursing home and earns more.

On 21 October 2024 the Family Court granted interim maintenance only to the daughters, at Rs 30,000 a month each until majority, and declined interim maintenance to the wife. On the husband's revision, the Allahabad High Court on 9 February 2026 reduced the amount to Rs 15,000 a month for each daughter, mainly because the wife was also earning.

The Key Question Before the Court

Can interim maintenance for children be halved merely because the mother also earns?

Shared Duty, Not Simple Division

The Court found that the High Court gave no reason for interfering with the Family Court's order beyond the wife's earnings. It had not found the assessment perverse, nor the total of Rs 60,000 excessive; it had in fact called that sum sufficient. The wife's earnings alone, the Court held, do not justify halving the husband's liability.

The Court gave weight to the mother's daily care of the daughters, observing: “Such care cannot be measured in money, but it is a real contribution, and often the greater one.” Even leaving aside her income, Rs 60,000 a month was modest for a father earning Rs 2,00,000 a month, given the daughters' education and upbringing. The Court noted that only interim maintenance was in issue and that the main petition remains pending.

What the Court Actually Held

• The High Court order dated 9 February 2026 was set aside.
• The Family Court order dated 21 October 2024 was restored: Rs 30,000 a month to each daughter.
• Arrears, if any, are to be paid by the husband to the wife within three months.
• The main Section 125 CrPC petition is to be decided on its own merits, uninfluenced by these orders.

Why This Judgment Matters

• It holds that a mother's income is not, by itself, a reason to cut a father's maintenance for children.
• It recognises the caring parent's daily contribution as real, even if not measured in money.
• It cautions revisional courts against interfering with interim maintenance without reasons.

What Should Advocates Take Away From the Judgment?

For the Claimant Parent

• Place the caring parent's daily contribution on record, not only incomes.
• Point out where a revisional order gives no reason for interfering.

For the Paying Parent

• Show actual perversity or excess in the Family Court's assessment, not just the other parent's earnings.
• Remember that interim orders do not bind the final decision on the main petition.

Key Takeaways

Frequently Asked Questions

No. The Family Court granted interim maintenance only to the daughters, and that order is what the Supreme Court restored.

Mainly because the wife was also earning; the Supreme Court held that was not enough.

No. It concerns interim maintenance; the main Section 125 petition is still pending.

Conclusion

Read the full judgment on CourtKutchehry: View judgment →