Roji Bano and Another v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another, 2026

The wife and her minor daughter filed an application under Section 125 CrPC seeking maintenance from the husband.

By an order dated August 2025, the Family Court rejected the wife's claim for interim maintenance but awarded ₹3,000 per month as interim maintenance to the minor daughter.

Aggrieved, the wife and daughter filed a criminal revision before the Allahabad High Court seeking enhancement of the child's maintenance and interim maintenance for the wife.

The wife contended that the maintenance awarded to the child was inadequate and that she had no independent means to maintain herself.

She claimed that she had worked on a contractual basis only for three months in 2022 and thereafter resigned because of pressure allegedly exerted by her husband.

The husband produced documentary evidence, including a salary slip showing that the wife was earning ₹14,125 per month.

He further pointed out that the wife had left blank the column relating to occupation and income in the affidavit filed pursuant to the Supreme Court's directions in Rajnesh v. Neha.

The husband also submitted that the minor child had earlier been in his custody and was being maintained by him.

He argued that the wife had obtained custody of the child through a habeas corpus petition by specifically asserting that she was financially capable of maintaining both herself and the child.

The High Court examined whether the Family Court had rightly refused interim maintenance to the wife and whether the maintenance awarded to the child required enhancement.

The High Court held that the Family Court had correctly concluded that the wife was capable of maintaining herself.

The Court relied upon the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Rajnesh v. Neha, observing that while the father ordinarily bears responsibility for the child's educational expenses, where both parents are earning sufficiently, the child's maintenance should be shared proportionately.

The Court noted that the wife had previously obtained custody of the child by affirmatively representing before the Court that she was financially capable of maintaining both herself and the child.

The Court held that, having obtained custody on such an assertion, the wife could not subsequently seek to shift the entire financial responsibility of the child exclusively onto the father.

The Court found that the wife had failed to produce any documentary evidence establishing that she had resigned from her employment or that she had become incapable of maintaining herself.

The Court also observed that the wife had omitted details of her occupation and income in the affidavit required under the guidelines laid down in Rajnesh v. Neha.

The Court further held that there was no material demonstrating a substantial increase in the child's actual and reasonable expenses, any significant improvement in the father's financial position, or any deterioration in the wife's financial condition.

Consequently, the Court held that no ground existed either to grant interim maintenance to the wife or to enhance the maintenance already awarded to the minor daughter.

Accordingly, the criminal revision was dismissed.

The judgment reinforces the principle that both parents share the responsibility of maintaining a child, particularly where both possess sufficient earning capacity.

By relying upon Rajnesh v. Neha, the Court reaffirmed that maintenance should be determined on the basis of actual financial circumstances, truthful disclosure of income, and proportional contribution by both parents.

The decision highlights the importance of consistency in pleadings, noting that a party who successfully asserts financial capability in one proceeding cannot subsequently adopt a contradictory position without credible evidence explaining the change in circumstances.

The Court emphasized that maintenance proceedings require full and honest disclosure of income, and omission of relevant financial particulars may adversely affect the claimant's case.

The judgment also clarifies that enhancement of child maintenance requires proof of changed circumstances, such as increased expenses of the child, improvement in the paying parent's financial capacity, or deterioration in the custodial parent's financial condition.

The ruling reflects an evolving approach toward shared parental financial responsibility, moving away from the assumption that the father alone must bear all expenses where the mother is independently earning.

Overall, the judgment balances the welfare of the child with equitable allocation of parental responsibilities while ensuring that maintenance orders are based on actual financial realities.