In a significant ruling that underscores the shared responsibilities of parenthood, the Delhi High Court has modified a child maintenance order while delivering a powerful message against forcing working mothers to shoulder disproportionate burdens. The court emphasized that a father cannot evade his financial duties towards his children by hiding behind misleading income disclosures.
Court Modifies Maintenance, Upholds Principle of Shared Duty
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma, in an order passed on December 27, 2025, modified the interim maintenance payable by a husband from Rs 30,000 to Rs 25,000 per month. The husband had claimed his monthly income was merely Rs 9,000 from his work as a homoeopathic pharmacist. The original order from a trial court in 2023 had directed the payment for the upkeep of the couple's three minor children.
The court was hearing the husband's plea challenging the trial court's directive. The wife, who has custody of all three children, had not sought any maintenance for herself or rental expenses, residing with the children at her parental home. Her sole focus was securing support for the children.
Beyond Bare Subsistence: A Holistic View of Child Uphringing
Justice Sharma's order went beyond the specific numbers, laying down crucial legal principles. The court stated that the obligation to maintain minor children is not just a "statutory duty" but a "legal, moral, and social responsibility" of both parents.
"Maintenance of children is not confined to bare subsistence; it encompasses their overall upbringing, education, health, and standard of living, consistent with the means and status of the parents," the court observed.
The judgment took stern note of the social reality where a mother's employment is wrongly seen as absolving the father of his duties. "A court of law cannot burden, nor does the law mandate, that the working mother should be forced to exhaust herself physically, emotionally, and financially, and allow the father to take refuge behind selective, misleading disclosures about his income and technical pleas," Justice Sharma stated.
Parenthood as Responsibility, Not Convenience
The court cautioned against equating the primary caregiver's employment with financial sufficiency. It noted the wife, a university employee earning approximately Rs 35,000 to Rs 45,000 per month, was bearing the dual burden of her job and single-handedly raising three children, covering school fees, tuition, and medical care.
Responding to the husband's claim that the wife acted from a "sense of entitlement," the judge said her conduct reflected responsibility and an effort to make the other parent realize his duty. The court stressed that "parenthood is a matter of responsibility and not of the convenience of a party."
The wife's counsel, Advocate Shaini Bhardwaj, argued the husband was highly qualified, holding an MBA degree and a diploma in Homoeopathy, was a credit card holder, and had expenditures inconsistent with his claimed meager income. The husband's counsel, Advocate Amit Gupta, maintained his client's financial incapacity.
The couple married in 2014 and parted ways in 2022 after the wife alleged dowry harassment and physical, emotional, and economic abuse. The core takeaway from the High Court's order is that in maintenance cases, the primary concern must always be the "welfare of the children" and the "dignity of a working woman," which should not be compromised by artificial financial arrangements.
