The Bombay High Court recognised the unpaid caregiving and day-to-day efforts of the mother while increasing the father’s financial liability in child’s maintenance case.
Would the Court equally recognise the unpaid caregiving of the father if he had custody of the child?
MAHARASHTRA: Justice Urmila Joshi-Phalke of the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench, dealt with a case where a minor child, through his mother, challenged the low maintenance granted by the Family Court. The earlier order had fixed ₹15,000 per month, but the child sought an increase, considering the financial status of both parents.
The case involved two medical professionals. The father was earning around ₹1.5 lakh per month, while the mother was earning between ₹70,000 to ₹80,000 per month. The child was living with the mother, and she was managing the child’s daily needs, education, medical expenses, and upbringing.
The Court examined the evidence and observed that both parents have a legal duty to maintain the child, but in practice, it placed a larger financial burden on the father because of his higher income. The Court emphasized that:
“Maintenance of children is not confined to bare subsistence; it encompasses their overall upbringing, education, health, and standard of living, consistent with the means and status of the parents.”
It was further observed that:
“The mere fact that the wife is earning does not absolve the husband of his responsibility to maintain his minor children.”
The Court also noted that a mother’s contribution cannot be measured only in money, stating that:
“Her physical presence, emotional support, and other tasks such as supervision of homework, school routines, healthcare, meals, and moral guidance constitute a full-time responsibility.”
The Court rejected any fixed formula and stated that:
“Maintenance cannot be determined by applying rigid arithmetic standards.”
It held that the child’s welfare must remain the priority over simple financial calculations.
The judgment also stated that:
“Every father is under obligation to provide a good education to his children,”
After considering all facts, the Court held that ₹15,000 was insufficient and enhanced the maintenance to ₹30,000 per month from the date of application, along with ₹10,000 litigation costs.
Explanatory Table: Laws And Provisions Involved
| Law / Provision | Purpose | How Applied in This Case |
| Section 125 CrPC (now BNSS equivalent in new law framework) | Provision for maintenance to wife, children, parents who cannot maintain themselves | Minor child sought monthly maintenance from father |
| Article 15(3) Constitution of India | State can make special provisions for women and children | Court referred to welfare objective behind maintenance law |
| Article 39 Constitution of India | Directive principles regarding social justice, child welfare, livelihood | Used to explain purpose of maintenance provisions |
| Article 21 Constitution of India | Right to life includes dignity and decent living | Court linked maintenance with dignified life of child |
| Restitution of Conjugal Rights | Petition seeking spouse to resume cohabitation | Father had earlier filed such case |
| Divorce Petition / Dissolution of Marriage | Legal case for ending marriage | Father had also filed divorce proceedings |
| Family Courts Act (Indirectly involved) | Family Courts decide matrimonial and child maintenance disputes | Original maintenance order passed by Family Court Nagpur |
| Law of Child Maintenance | Both parents must support child as per means | Court said duty exists on both, but father to bear more |
Case Details
- Case Title: Mast. MPB vs Dr. PMB
- Court: Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench
- Case Type: Criminal Revision Application No.147 of 2023
- Neutral Citation: 2026:BHC-NAG:5555
- Judge / Bench: Justice Urmila Joshi-Phalke
- Date Of Judgment: 08.04.2026
- Counsels:
- For Applicant: Mr. Anant Neware, Advocate
- For Respondent: Mr. Amol Jaltare, Advocate
Key Takeaways
- Courts continue to place higher financial liability on fathers even when both parents are earning professionals.
- A working mother’s income does not reduce the father’s primary maintenance burden in practice.
- Caregiving by mothers is legally valued beyond money, but similar recognition for fathers remains unclear.
- Maintenance is decided based on child’s lifestyle and father’s income, not strict equal sharing.
- True gender-neutral justice will exist only when same standards are applied equally to both parents without bias.
This Could Change Your Case-Get FREE Legal Advice-Click Here!
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the Indian courts and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of “ShoneeKapoor.com” or its affiliates. This article is intended for informational and educational purposes only. The content provided is not legal advice, and viewers should not act upon this information without seeking professional counsel. Viewer discretion is advised.
