Sujata Kumari & Ors. v. Rahul Kumar & Anr., 2026

Due to matrimonial difficulties and increasing acrimony, the wife and daughters left the matrimonial home.

In 2022, the appellants filed a petition under Section 125 CrPC, seeking maintenance of ₹2,50,000 per month from the husband/father.

The wife is an M.B.B.S., D.G.O.-qualified gynaecologist and stated that she earned approximately ₹1,50,000 per month. The husband, a qualified M.B.B.S., M.D. paediatrician, stated that he earned approximately ₹2,00,000 per month.

The Family Court, by order dated 21 October 2024, awarded ₹30,000 per month to each daughter, amounting to ₹60,000 per month, as interim maintenance. It did not award interim maintenance to the wife.

The husband challenged this order before the Allahabad High Court. The High Court reduced the maintenance to ₹15,000 per month for each daughter, effectively reducing the total to ₹30,000 per month.

The appellants then approached the Supreme Court. 

The Court restored the Family Court's order dated 21 October 2024, thereby restoring interim maintenance of:

₹30,000 per month for each daughter

₹60,000 per month collectively for both daughters

The Supreme Court held that the wife's income, by itself, could not justify halving the father's liability towards the children.

The Court emphasized that although the responsibility of maintaining children is shared by both parents, the contribution of each parent cannot be determined by simple mathematical division. The daughters lived with their mother, who was responsible for their daily care and upbringing while also working professionally.

The Court also directed that any arrears should be paid by the husband to the appellant-wife within three months.

Importantly, the Supreme Court clarified that the main Section 125 CrPC maintenance proceedings were still pending and should be decided on their own merits, without being influenced by the findings made in the interim proceedings. 

First, the Supreme Court rejected the approach of mechanically dividing the children's financial requirements between the parents. While both parents have an obligation to maintain their children, the Court recognized that the actual contributions of parents may include both financial and non-financial care.

Second, the Court attached importance to the fact that the daughters were living with their mother. The mother was not only earning an income but was also undertaking their daily care, upbringing and educational responsibilities. Such contributions cannot necessarily be quantified in monetary terms. 

Third, the Supreme Court found that the High Court had not identified the Family Court's assessment as perverse or found the ₹60,000 monthly amount to be excessive. The principal reason given for reducing the amount was that the mother was also earning. The Supreme Court considered this insufficient.

Fourth, the Court considered the husband's own stated income of approximately ₹2 lakh per month, along with the age and educational needs of the two daughters. In that context, the Court found ₹60,000 per month for both children to be reasonable. 

Fifth, the judgment is confined to interim maintenance. The main Section 125 CrPC petition remained pending before the Family Court. Therefore, the Supreme Court expressly directed that the final maintenance proceedings should be decided independently and on their own merits.