The Supreme Court has restored an order directing a father to pay ₹30,000 per month to each of his two minor daughters, holding that the fact that the mother is earning cannot, by itself, be a reason to halve the father's liability towards the children.

A Bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta allowed the appeal filed by the wife and her two minor daughters and set aside the Allahabad High Court order that had reduced the interim maintenance from ₹30,000 to ₹15,000 per daughter per month.

The judgment was delivered in Sujata Kumari & Ors. v. Rahul Kumar & Anr., 2026 INSC 896, arising out of SLP (Criminal) No. 9661 of 2026.

Wife's Income Not a Ground to Reduce Father's Share

The wife, an M.B.B.S., D.G.O. qualified gynaecologist, stated that she earns ₹1.5 lakh per month while working at a hospital in Greater Noida. The husband, also a qualified doctor, stated that he earns ₹2 lakh per month as a consultant paediatrician.

The couple married on June 18, 2006, and have two daughters, aged approximately nine and eight years. The wife had also given birth to a son who unfortunately died shortly after birth.

In 2022, the wife filed proceedings under Section 125 CrPC, seeking ₹2.5 lakh per month as maintenance from her husband. The Family Court subsequently awarded interim maintenance of ₹30,000 per month to each daughter, while declining interim maintenance to the wife.

The Allahabad High Court subsequently reduced the amount to ₹15,000 per month for each daughter, taking the view that the responsibility for maintaining the children could not be placed solely upon the father since the mother was also earning.

‘Mother’s Earnings Cannot, By Themselves, Halve Father’s Liability’

The Supreme Court disagreed with the High Court's reasoning.

The Bench observed that the High Court had not found the Family Court's assessment to be perverse or the total amount of ₹60,000 per month to be excessive. In fact, the High Court had itself considered ₹60,000 per month sufficient for the maintenance of both daughters considering the status of their parents.

The Supreme Court held that the wife's earnings, by themselves, cannot be a reason to halve the father's liability.

While the obligation to maintain children is shared by both parents, the Court stressed that the responsibility cannot simply be divided through arithmetic.

The daughters live with their mother, who takes care of their daily needs and upbringing while also working. The Court noted that such care “cannot be measured in money” but constitutes a real contribution and can often be the greater one.

₹60,000 Per Month Not Excessive for Two School-Going Children

The Supreme Court further held that even if the wife's income were completely left out of consideration, the reduction ordered by the High Court could not be sustained.

The husband, on his own showing, earns ₹2 lakh per month. Considering that the daughters are school-going children aged around nine and eight years, the Court held that ₹60,000 per month for both daughters is not a large amount for a father in his position.

The Court said that the children's education and upbringing require such expenditure.

The Family Court had considered the status of the parties, the children's requirements, income affidavits and expenses placed before it before fixing the interim maintenance at ₹30,000 per daughter.

The Supreme Court found the amount “just and reasonable” and held that it called for no interference.

Allahabad High Court Order Set Aside

The Supreme Court accordingly set aside the Allahabad High Court's order dated February 9, 2026, and restored the Family Court's order dated October 21, 2024.

The husband has been directed to pay any arrears to the wife within three months from the date of the Supreme Court's judgment.

The Court clarified that the main Section 125 CrPC proceedings remain pending before the Family Court and must be decided independently on their own merits, without being influenced by the findings made in the interim proceedings.

Case: Sujata Kumari & Ors. v. Rahul Kumar & Anr.
Bench: Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta
Judgment Date: August 20, 2026
Key Holding: Mother's employment or income, by itself, cannot justify reducing the father's financial responsibility towards minor children.

Representation:-

For Petitioner(s) :Mr. Mimansak Bhardwaj, AOR Mr. Mk Pandey, Adv. Ms. Seema Trivedi, Adv. Mr. Vv Chaudhary, Adv. Ms. Mansi, Adv. Ms. Shrishti Bidani, Adv. Mr. Rahul Pal, Adv. Mr. Mayank Kaushik, Adv.

For Respondent(s) :Mr. Ajitabha Pandey, Adv. Mr. D.K. Chaubey, Adv. Ms. Pooja Sharma, Adv. Ms. Arpana Porwal, Adv. Ms. Nirali Sharma, Adv. Ms. Manju Jetley, AOR Dr. Vijendra Singh, AOR Mr. Aniket Tiwari, Adv. Ms. Apurva Singh, Adv. Ms. Kim Pandey, Ad