Criminal Procedure Code (2 of 1973), S. 125 — Interim maintenance to minor children — Working/earning mother — Sharing of financial obligation — Maintenance cannot be divided by mere arithmetic formula — Mother providing daily physical care, upbringing, and emotional support contributes significantly beyond monetary value — Father's liability cannot be automatically halved simply because mother has independent income. Held: The obligation to maintain minor children is shared by both parents, but it cannot be apportioned on simple mathematical calculations alone. While a mother may be gainfully employed and earning a substantial income, the fact that the minor children reside with her and she tends to their daily needs, care, and upbringing constitutes a substantial and real contribution that often outweighs monetary inputs. The High Court erred in mechanically halving the interim maintenance awarded against the father solely on the ground that the mother is also earning, without finding any perversity in the Family Court's assessment. (Paras 8, 9, 10)

  2026 INSC 896

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

(From: Allahabad High Court)

Coram: VIKRAM NATH and SANDEEP MEHTA, JJ.

Criminal Appeal No. of 2026 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 9661 of 2026), D/- 20-08-2026.

Sujata Kumari & Ors. — Appellants

versus

Rahul Kumar & Anr. — Respondents

HEADNOTE

(A) Criminal Procedure Code (2 of 1973), S. 125 — Interim maintenance to minor children — Working/earning mother — Sharing of financial obligation — Maintenance cannot be divided by mere arithmetic formula — Mother providing daily physical care, upbringing, and emotional support contributes significantly beyond monetary value — Father's liability cannot be automatically halved simply because mother has independent income.

Held: The obligation to maintain minor children is shared by both parents, but it cannot be apportioned on simple mathematical calculations alone. While a mother may be gainfully employed and earning a substantial income, the fact that the minor children reside with her and she tends to their daily needs, care, and upbringing constitutes a substantial and real contribution that often outweighs monetary inputs. The High Court erred in mechanically halving the interim maintenance awarded against the father solely on the ground that the mother is also earning, without finding any perversity in the Family Court's assessment. (Paras 8, 9, 10)

(B) Criminal Procedure Code (2 of 1973), S. 125, S. 397 — Revisional jurisdiction — Interference with interim maintenance — Standard of living and status of parties — Father earning Rs. 2,00,000/- per month as a consultant paediatrician — Family Court awarding Rs. 30,000/- per month each for two school-going daughters — Legality and reasonableness.

Held: Having regard to the status of the parties (both qualified medical doctors), the admitted monthly income of the father (Rs. 2,00,000/- per month), and the realistic educational and daily expenses of two school-going minor daughters aged 8 and 9 years, the Family Court's award of interim maintenance of Rs. 30,000/- per month per child (total Rs. 60,000/- per month) was just, reasonable, and appropriate. In the absence of any perversity, the High Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction ought not to have interfered with the interim arrangement. (Paras 7, 11, 12, 13)

FACTS

• The appellant-wife (an M.B.B.S., D.G.O. gynaecologist earning Rs. 1,50,000/- per month) and the respondent-husband (an M.B.B.S., M.D. consultant paediatrician admitting an income of Rs. 2,00,000/- per month) were married on 18.06.2006 and had two minor daughters aged about 9 and 8 years.
  
  
• Following marital discord, the wife left the matrimonial home along with the two minor daughters and filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. (Case No. 355/2022) claiming maintenance of Rs. 2,50,000/- per month. (Paras 3.1, 3.3, 3.4, 3.5)
  
  
• The Family Court, vide order dated 21.10.2024, declined interim maintenance to the wife in view of her sufficient independent income, but awarded interim maintenance of Rs. 30,000/- per month to each of the two minor daughters from the date of filing until majority. (Paras 3.6, 7)
  
  
• In Criminal Revision No. 10 of 2025 preferred by the husband, the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, vide order dated 09.02.2026, held that Rs. 60,000/- per month in total was adequate for the two daughters, but halved the husband's liability to Rs. 15,000/- per month per child (total Rs. 30,000/- per month) on the ground that the mother was also gainfully employed. (Paras 3.8, 8)
  
  

ANALYSIS OF FACTS & LAW

• Flawed Rationale of Mechanical Reduction: The High Court concurred that Rs. 60,000/- per month was reasonable for the maintenance and upbringing of the two minor daughters given the status of the parties. However, it erred in halving the father's contribution purely because the mother was employed. The care, emotional labor, and day-to-day upbringing provided by the custodial parent cannot be measured in monetary terms alone and represents an invaluable contribution to the children's welfare. (Paras 9, 10)
  
  
• Financial Capacity of the Father: Even considering the father's income independently, an amount of Rs. 60,000/- per month (representing 30% of his admitted monthly earnings of Rs. 2,00,000/-) for the upbringing, schooling, and care of two young daughters is fully commensurate with his financial status and obligations. (Para 11)
  
  
• Interim Nature of Proceedings: Since the substantive petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. remains pending for final adjudication before the Family Court, the well-reasoned interim determination arrived at by the Family Court based on the parties' income affidavits warranted no interference in revisional jurisdiction. (Paras 12, 13)
  
  

CONCLUSION

• The impugned judgment and order of the Allahabad High Court dated 09.02.2026 was set aside.
  
  
• The order of the Family Court dated 21.10.2024 awarding Rs. 30,000/- per month to each of the two minor daughters was restored.
  
  
• The respondent-husband was directed to clear all arrears of interim maintenance within a period of three months.
  
  
• The Family Court was directed to dispose of the main petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. on its own merits uninfluenced by the observations made in the interim orders. (Paras 14, 15, 16)