Division Bench Restores Family Court Order Directing Qualified Doctor to Pay ₹30,000 Monthly for Each Minor Daughter
Maternal Caregiving as an Invaluable Contribution
The Supreme Court Child Maintenance ruling highlights the value of a mother’s daily care for her children. The Supreme Court held that her independent income cannot, by itself, reduce the father’s maintenance liability. Moreover, caregiving represents a significant contribution that courts cannot measure only in money.
A Division Bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta considered the dispute. Specifically, the case concerned maintenance for two school-going daughters.
Initially, the Family Court directed the father to pay ₹30,000 per month for each daughter. However, the Allahabad High Court later reduced the amount to ₹15,000 per child.
The Supreme Court disagreed with this approach. According to the Bench, courts cannot divide parental responsibilities through a rigid mathematical formula. In particular, a working mother’s income does not automatically justify reducing the father’s contribution.
The Court observed:
“The obligation to maintain the children cannot be divided by arithmetic alone. The fact that the wife earns by itself is not a reason to reduce the husband’s liability to maintain children… Such care cannot be measured in money, but it is a real contribution, and often the greater one.”
Maintenance Dispute and High Court’s Reduction
The dispute involved a qualified doctor who admitted earning ₹2,00,000 per month. Meanwhile, his two daughters were eight and nine years old.
After considering their needs and the father’s financial position, the Family Court fixed interim maintenance at ₹30,000 per child. Thus, his total monthly liability came to ₹60,000.
Subsequently, the husband challenged the order before the Allahabad High Court. He relied partly on the mother’s independent earnings to seek a reduction.
At the time, the mother worked as a practising gynecologist. She earned about ₹1,50,000 per month. Therefore, the High Court concluded that she should contribute equally towards the children’s expenses.
As a result, it reduced the father’s liability to ₹15,000 per child. His total monthly payment consequently fell from ₹60,000 to ₹30,000.
Thereafter, Sujata Kumari and her minor daughters approached the Supreme Court. They challenged the reduction granted by the High Court.
According to them, the High Court placed too much emphasis on income figures. They also highlighted the actual expenses of raising two growing children. Furthermore, the mother pointed to her daily responsibilities as their custodial parent.
Supreme Court Rejects the Arithmetic Approach
After examining the financial position of both parents, the Supreme Court found no sufficient reason for the reduction. Instead, it supported the amount originally fixed by the Family Court.
Importantly, the father had admitted that he earned ₹2,00,000 every month. Given that income, the Bench found ₹60,000 per month for two school-going children reasonable.
Additionally, the Court considered the family’s social and financial circumstances. Children’s expenses go beyond food and other basic necessities. For instance, education, healthcare and developmental needs require adequate financial support.
The Supreme Court Child Maintenance ruling also recognised the mother’s non-financial contribution. As the custodial parent, she spends substantial time caring for and supervising the children. Therefore, her contribution cannot be assessed merely through her salary.
Furthermore, judges must consider caregiving responsibilities while deciding maintenance disputes. They should not rely solely on a comparison of the parents’ incomes.
Consequently, the mother’s employment did not justify an automatic reduction in the father’s liability. Similarly, her earnings did not erase the value of her daily care and supervision.
Family Court’s ₹60,000 Award Restored
Ultimately, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal and rejected the High Court’s reduction. It then restored the Family Court’s original maintenance amount.
Accordingly, the father must pay ₹30,000 per month for each minor daughter. Therefore, his total maintenance liability stands at ₹60,000 per month.
Overall, the ruling reinforces an important principle in child maintenance disputes. Courts must consider the children’s needs and each parent’s financial capacity. At the same time, they must recognise the custodial parent’s daily caregiving responsibilities.
Most importantly, a mother’s independent income does not automatically reduce the father’s obligation to financially support his minor children.
