Supreme Court Restores ₹60,000 Interim Maintenance for Two Daughters; Mother’s Earnings No Ground to Halve Father’s Share
Legal News | 21 August 2026
The Supreme Court has held that the fact that a mother is earning does not, by itself, justify reducing a father’s financial responsibility towards his minor children. In Sujata Kumari & Ors. v. Rahul Kumar & Anr., the Court restored interim maintenance of ₹30,000 per month for each of two minor daughters, reversing the reduction ordered by the Allahabad High Court.
What the Supreme Court held
The Bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta emphasised that parental responsibility cannot be divided by a purely mathematical formula. Where the children reside with one parent, the day-to-day care, supervision, education, emotional support and practical responsibilities discharged by that parent constitute a real contribution which cannot be ignored merely because that parent also earns an income.
The Family Court had awarded a total of ₹60,000 per month for the two daughters. The High Court reduced the amount to ₹30,000 per month in aggregate. The Supreme Court set aside that reduction and restored the Family Court’s order.
Father’s financial capacity and children’s needs
The Court took note of the father’s own case that he was a qualified doctor earning approximately ₹2 lakh per month. Against that background, the Court found that ₹60,000 per month for two school-going daughters aged around eight and nine years could not be treated as excessive. The Court also directed clearance of arrears within the period specified in its order.
Why the ruling matters
The judgment reinforces an important maintenance principle: an earning custodial parent does not automatically reduce the other parent’s obligation by half. Courts must consider the actual needs of the children, the financial capacity of both parents and the non-monetary burden borne by the parent who has day-to-day custody.
The proceedings concerned interim maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Supreme Court clarified that the main maintenance proceedings would be decided independently on their own merits.
Case: Sujata Kumari & Ors. v. Rahul Kumar & Anr., Criminal Appeal No. 2215 of 2026, decided on 20 August 2026.
This report is based on the Supreme Court ruling and contemporaneous legal reporting. It is intended for legal information and not as legal advice.