A MOTHER’S INCOME DOES NOT END A FATHER’S DUTY

INTRODUCTION
The Supreme Court of India, in Sujata Kumari & Ors. v. Rahul Kumar & Anr., 2026 INSC 896, delivered an important Judgment on 20 August 2026 concerning the maintenance of minor children. The Judgment was delivered by a Bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta.
The case dealt with a simple but important question. When both parents are earning, can the father’s responsibility towards his children be reduced merely because the mother also has an income? The Supreme Court answered this question clearly. The fact that the mother is earning does not, by itself, justify reducing the amount of maintenance payable by the father.
The Judgment also recognised something that is often missed while calculating maintenance. Raising children is not only about paying bills. The parent who lives with the children and looks after their everyday needs is also making a significant contribution.

BRIEF FACTS
The marriage between the Appellant Wife and the Respondent Husband took place on 18 June 2006. They had two daughters, who were about nine and eight years old when the matter reached the Supreme Court. The couple also had a son who unfortunately passed away shortly after his birth. Differences arose between the Husband and Wife and the Wife eventually left the matrimonial home with the children.
In 2022, the Wife and her daughters filed a Petition under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking maintenance of Rs. 2,50,000 per month.
The Wife was a qualified doctor and worked as a gynaecologist. She stated that she earned around Rs. 1,50,000 per month. The Husband was also a qualified doctor and stated that he earned around Rs. 2,00,000 per month as a consultant paediatrician. The Wife, however, claimed that his actual income was higher and that he owned a nursing home.
The Family Court, after considering the material before it, granted interim maintenance of Rs. 30,000 per month to each daughter. It did not grant interim maintenance to the Wife.
The Husband challenged this Order before the Allahabad High Court. The High Court reduced the amount to Rs. 15,000 per month for each daughter. The Wife and the children then approached the Supreme Court.

ISSUES OF LAW
The main issue before the Supreme Court was whether the High Court was justified in reducing the interim maintenance payable to the two daughters from Rs. 30,000 each to Rs. 15,000 each merely because the Mother was also earning.
Another important question was how the financial responsibility of parents towards their children should be understood when both parents have an income.

ANALYSIS
The Supreme Court did not agree with the reasoning adopted by the High Court.
The High Court had accepted that Rs. 60,000 per month was a reasonable amount for the two daughters. However, it reduced the Father’s contribution by half because the Mother was also earning. The Supreme Court found this reasoning insufficient.
The Court made an important observation. The fact that the Mother earns an income cannot, by itself, become a reason for reducing the Father’s responsibility towards his children.
The Court accepted that both parents have a responsibility to maintain their children. But that responsibility cannot simply be divided by doing a mathematical calculation. The daughters were living with their Mother. She was looking after their everyday needs and upbringing while also continuing to work as a doctor. The Court observed that this form of care cannot be measured in money, but it is nevertheless a real contribution and can often be the greater contribution.
This observation is perhaps the most significant part of the Judgment. In maintenance proceedings, there can sometimes be an excessive focus on the salary or income of the parent who has custody of the children. The Supreme Court has reminded courts that income is only one part of the picture. The actual responsibility undertaken by each parent also matters.
The Court further noted that even if the Wife’s income was completely left out of consideration, the reduction ordered by the High Court could not be justified. The Husband himself stated that he earned Rs. 2,00,000 per month. Considering his income and the fact that the daughters were school going children aged about eight and nine years, the Court found that Rs. 60,000 per month for both children was not excessive.
The Supreme Court therefore restored the Family Court’s Order granting Rs. 30,000 per month to each daughter. It also directed the Husband to clear any arrears within three months.
The Court also made it clear that the proceedings before it concerned only interim maintenance. The main Petition under Section 125 CrPC was still pending before the Family Court and would have to be decided independently on its own merits.

CONCLUSION
The Judgment in Sujata Kumari v. Rahul Kumar sends a clear message that the responsibility of raising children cannot be reduced to a simple calculation based on the salaries of the parents.
A mother having a job does not mean that the father can automatically reduce his financial responsibility. At the same time, the Court has recognised that the parent who lives with the children often contributes in ways that do not appear in a bank statement.
The Judgment is therefore important not only for maintenance proceedings but also for the way courts understand parenting after a marriage breaks down. The cost of raising a child can be calculated in rupees, but the value of raising a child cannot be reduced to numbers.

SARTHAK KALRA
Senior Legal Associate
The Indian Lawyer & Allied Services

Watch our latest video