Mother earned ₹1.5 lakh a month, yet the Supreme Court restored the father’s ₹60,000 monthly liability for two daughters. Why did the Court reject the High Court’s 50% reduction despite both parents being financially independent?

NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court of India has held that merely because a mother is earning ₹1.5 lakh per month, the father’s maintenance liability towards his minor children cannot automatically be reduced by half.

A Bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta set aside the Allahabad High Court order, which had reduced interim maintenance for two minor daughters from a total of ₹60,000 to ₹30,000 per month. The Supreme Court restored the Family Court’s award of ₹30,000 per month to each daughter.

The case arose from matrimonial disputes between Sujata Kumari and Rahul Kumar. They were married and had two daughters, aged about nine and eight. In 2022, the wife and daughters filed a case under Section 125 CrPC, seeking ₹2.5 lakh per month as maintenance from the husband.The wife is an MBBS, DGO-qualified gynaecologist and stated that she earns ₹1.5 lakh per month at a hospital in Greater Noida. The husband is an MBBS, MD-qualified consultant paediatrician and stated that he earns ₹2 lakh per month. The wife, however, claimed that the husband owns his own nursing home.

On October 21, 2024, the Family Court refused to grant interim maintenance to the earning wife but awarded ₹30,000 per month to each minor daughter. The husband challenged this order before the Allahabad High Court. The High Court partly allowed his revision and reduced the amount to ₹15,000 per month for each daughter, effectively reducing his monthly liability from ₹60,000 to ₹30,000.

Before the Supreme Court, counsel for the appellants argued that the High Court wrongly reduced the amount despite recognising the children's young age and their need for proper care and upbringing. They also argued that the daughters’ education and other expenses could not be met from the mother’s income alone and that the father earned much more than ₹2 lakh per month.

Counsel for the husband supported the reduction, arguing that responsibility for maintaining the daughters rested with both parents. Since the mother was herself working as a gynaecologist and earning ₹1.5 lakh per month, it was argued that she was equally placed to bear part of their expenses.

The Supreme Court disagreed with the High Court’s reasoning. It noted that the High Court itself considered ₹60,000 per month sufficient for both daughters considering their parents’ status, but reduced the father’s liability simply because the mother was also earning. The High Court had neither found the Family Court’s assessment perverse nor held ₹60,000 to be excessive.

The Supreme Court held:

“That the appellant-wife's earnings are not, by themselves, 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.”

The Court further examined the husband’s own disclosed income and held:

“Even if the wife’s earnings are left out of account, the reduction cannot stand. The respondent-husband is a qualified doctor and on his own showing earns Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only) per month. For two school-going daughters aged about nine and eight years, 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.”

The Supreme Court found that the Family Court had properly considered the income affidavits, the parents' status, and the children's expenses. It held that ₹30,000 per daughter, totalling ₹60,000 per month as interim maintenance, was just and reasonable.

The Court also clarified that the main Section 125 CrPC maintenance case is still pending before the Family Court and the present proceedings concerned only interim maintenance. The final maintenance case must be decided independently on its own merits without being influenced by the findings in the orders challenged before the Supreme Court.Accordingly, the Supreme Court set aside the Allahabad High Court order dated February 9, 2026 and restored the Family Court order dated October 21, 2024. The husband was directed to clear any maintenance arrears within three months.

EXPLANATORY TABLE OF LAWS AND SECTIONS

CASE DETAILS

KEY TAKEAWAYS

• Wife Earning ₹1.5 Lakh Did Not Reduce the Father’s ₹60,000 Monthly Child Maintenance Burden.
• Father’s Liability Was Restored In Full Even Though The Mother Was Financially Independent.
• For A Father, The Wife’s Salary Alone Is Not Enough To Cut Child Maintenance—His Income And The Children’s Needs Still Decide The Burden.
• Supreme Court Rejected A Simple 50-50 Formula: Fathers Cannot Assume An Earning Mother Means Half The Liability.
• Men Must Understand This Clearly—An Earning Wife May Support The Children, But That By Itself Does Not Shield The Father From A Higher Maintenance Order.