BEYOND PAY SLIPS: PARENTHOOD, RESPONSIBILITY AND THE TRUE MEANING OF CHILD MAINTENANCE

INTRODUCTION
The Delhi High Court, in Hitesh Makhija v. Ritu Makhija, 2025 SCC OnLine Del 9664, delivered a nuanced and socially grounded judgment on 27 December 2025. The decision was authored by Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma, who examined the contours of interim child maintenance under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (PWDV Act).
The Judgment goes beyond numerical income comparisons and reaffirms that maintenance jurisprudence is not an accounting exercise, but an evaluation of responsibility, caregiving, and the welfare of children. It decisively rejects attempts to evade parental obligations through selective disclosure of income and artificial financial narratives.

BRIEF FACTS
The marriage between the Petitioner-Husband and the Respondent-Wife was solemnized in January 2014. Three minor children were born from the wedlock. Following matrimonial discord, the wife initiated proceedings under Section 12 of the PWDV Act, seeking protection and maintenance for the children.
By Order dated 23 December 2023, the Trial Court directed the Husband to pay ₹30,000 per month as interim maintenance, quantified at ₹10,000 per child. Importantly, no maintenance was claimed or awarded to the wife herself.
The Husband’s appeal under Section 29 of the PWDV Act was dismissed by the Sessions Court on 30 March 2024, prompting the present criminal revision before the Delhi High Court. The Husband contended that he earned merely ₹9,000 per month, while the wife earned approximately ₹34,500 per month and was therefore financially capable of maintaining the children without his contribution.

ISSUES OF LAW
1) Whether a working mother’s income absolves the father of his obligation to maintain minor children.
2) How courts should assess income where a party allegedly suppresses or understates financial capacity.
3) Whether interim child maintenance must be limited to bare subsistence or extend to overall dignity, education, and upbringing.

ANALYSIS OF THE JUDGMENT
Assessment of Financial Capacity Over Claimed Income
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma rejected the Petitioner’s claim of earning only ₹9,000 per month as implausible and misleading. The Court relied on multiple objective indicators—prior Income Tax Returns, bank statements showing unexplained credit entries, possession and use of a credit card and inconsistent claims regarding residence and parental disownment.
The Court held that income affidavits cannot be read in isolation. Where the surrounding circumstances contradict self-serving declarations, courts are duty-bound to draw adverse inferences. On a holistic assessment, the husband’s income was reasonably assessed at ₹40,000 per month for interim maintenance purposes.

Shared Parental Responsibility Is Not Mathematical Equality
The Judgment emphatically reiterates that both parents are legally, morally and socially responsible for maintaining their children. The Court clarified that while proportional contribution is relevant when both parents are earning, custody and caregiving cannot be monetarily equated.
A significant portion of the analysis focuses on the dual burden borne by the custodial parent, particularly a working mother who simultaneously shoulders employment obligations and full-time caregiving. The Court cautioned against equating employment with financial sufficiency, holding that caregiving labour, though unpaid, is invaluable and legally relevant.

Maintenance as a Child-Centric Right, Not Spousal Charity
The Court strongly rejected the argument that child maintenance becomes unjustified merely because the mother earns. Maintenance, it observed, is a right of the child, not an entitlement asserted by the custodial parent. The goal is not survival, but continuity in education, dignity, emotional stability and holistic development.
Importantly, the Court emphasised that proceedings under maintenance laws must not reward strategic under-disclosure or permit parents to “opt out” of responsibility through technicalities.

Balanced Modification of Quantum
While upholding the findings of the Trial Court and Sessions Court on responsibility, the High Court marginally reduced the interim maintenance from ₹30,000 to ₹25,000 per month, applying a proportional distribution formula and factoring in the wife’s income and contribution.
This calibrated approach underscores judicial restraint while ensuring that the children’s welfare remains paramount.

CONCLUSION
The Judgment in Hitesh Makhija v. Ritu Makhija is a reaffirmation that parenthood cannot be selectively acknowledged or conveniently disowned. Maintenance law, as the Delhi High Court reminds, is not about who earns more on paper, but about who bears the real burden of nurturing, caregiving and responsibility.
By piercing through artificial financial arrangements and recognising the invisible labour of caregiving, the Court reinforces a child-centric, dignity-based approach to maintenance. The ruling stands as a significant precedent against income suppression and as a reminder that earning less does not mean owing less, when it comes to one’s children.

SARTHAK KALRA
SENIOR LEGAL ASSOCIATE
THE INDIAN LAWYER AND ALIED SERVICES

Please log onto our YouTube channel, The Indian Lawyer Legal Tips, to learn about various aspects of the law. Our latest Video, titled “Understanding SARFAESI Act | Rights of Borrowers 2025, DRT, Supreme Court Judgments” can be viewed at the link below: