The Supreme Court on Thursday (20.08.2026) set aside the Allahabad High Court's order that reduced the amount of interim maintenance, holding that 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, the Court observed.

A bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta passed the orders while hearing an appeal against the High Court's order which had altered the Family Court's order and reduced the amount of interim maintenance from Rs 60,000 to Rs 30,000.

Both the appellant(wife) and the respondent(husband) are qualified doctors and got married in 2006. They have two minor daughters. Troubles arose between them which constrained the appellant to leave the matrimonial home. Thereafter, a petition under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC, now Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023) was filed by the appellant seeking Rs 2,50,000 per month as maintenance. The Family Court awarded interim maintenance of Rs 30,000 per month for each daughter, only in respect of the two minor daughters. It declined the interim maintenance to the appellant noting appellant's professional status (earning 1.5 lakh per month) and holding that interim maintenance is meant to protect a party from unemployment or an immediate inability to meet daily needs.

Pursuant to this, the respondent approached the Allahabad High Court in revision, which had reduced the amount of interim maintenance from Rs 30,000 per month to Rs 15,000 per month for each daughter, holding that the responsibility of maintaining the daughters rests upon both parents. Thereafter, the appellant approached the Supreme Court.

Before the Supreme Court, the appellant relied on the Family Court's order to submit that the High Court had erred in reducing the interim maintenance despite acknowledging the tender age of the children. It was also submitted that the appellant alone cannot bear the expenses towards their education and upbringing. On the contrary, the respondent supported the High Court's holding that the responsibility of maintaining the daughters rests upon both parents, and that the appellant, being herself employed, is equally placed to bear a share of the expenses.

The Supreme Court took note of the Family Court's observation that interim maintenance is meant to protect a party from unemployment or an immediate inability to meet daily needs, on the basis of which it declined interim maintenance to the appellant. However, the Family Court took into consideration the educational and other expenses of the daughters and noted that the responsibility for their upbringing lay on both parents, and hence awarded Rs 30,000 per month for each daughter.

The bench also took note of the High Court's view which had itself proceeded on the footing that Rs 60,000 per month would be sufficient for the maintenance of both daughters, but halved the amount on the view that the burden could not be fastened solely on the father.

Finding the High Court's reasoning as unsustainable, the Supreme Court observed:

“The impugned order gives no reason for interfering with the order of the Family Court other than the fact that the appellant-wife is also earning. The High Court did not find the assessment of the Family Court to be perverse, nor did it find the sum of Rs 60,000 per month to be excessive. It in fact held that sum to be sufficient for the two daughters, having regard to the status of their parents. Nothing else was said by the High Court while modifying the Family Court's order.”

Addressing the High Court's rationale behind reducing the amount, the bench held that, “the appellant-wife earns is not, by itself, 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.”

It was further held that even leaving the wife's earnings out of account altogether, the reduction could not stand, given the respondent's own disclosed income. “The respondent-husband is a qualified doctor and on his own showing earns Rs 2,00,000 per month. For two school-going daughters aged about nine and eight years, a sum ofRs.60,000 per month is not a large amount for a father in his position. Their upbringing and education require as much,” the bench held.

The bench also held that the Family Court had “correctly appreciated the status of the parties and the needs of the two minor daughters” after considering the income affidavits and expenses on record, and found the aggregate award of Rs 60,000 per month to be “just and reasonable,” calling for no interference in revision.

The Court further clarified that its order concerns only interim maintenance and the main petition under Section 125 CrPC remains pending before the Family Court which would be decided on its own merit, uninfluenced by the Supreme Court's order.

In the light of above, the bench set aside the High Court's order and restored the Family Court's order.

Case: Sujata Kumari & Ors v Rahul Kumar & Anr

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 839

Appearance:

For Appellant: Mr Mimansak Bhardwaj, Adv.

For Respondent: Mr Vijendra Singh, Adv.; Ms Manju Jetly, Adv.

Click Here To Read/Download Order