Parents who separate no longer default to the old pattern of one custodial home and fortnightly visitation. Week-about arrangements, split school terms and joint decision-making are now regular features of custody orders and settlements. What happens to child maintenance in such arrangements? The instinct — “we each pay when the child is with us, so no one pays the other” — is often wrong, because the legal duty to maintain a child is tied to the child’s needs and each parent’s capacity, not to the number of nights on a calendar.
The duty belongs to both parents
Indian law has never made child maintenance the father’s burden alone. Section 20 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 obliges a Hindu — expressly, “male or female” — to maintain legitimate and illegitimate minor children. Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, like Section 125 CrPC before it, speaks of any person having sufficient means who neglects or refuses to maintain his or her minor child unable to maintain itself. Section 26 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 empowers the court seized of a matrimonial case to pass interim and final orders for the custody, maintenance and education of the children. The question in a shared-custody case is therefore never whether both parents must contribute — it is how the contribution is organised when the child lives in two homes.
Why fifty-fifty time does not mean zero maintenance
A child’s costs do not divide neatly by nights. Some costs follow the calendar — food, utilities, outings. Others are fixed and continuous regardless of where the child sleeps: school fees, uniforms and books, coaching, medical insurance, devices. And some are embedded in each household — a child needs a room, clothing and essentials in both homes, which makes shared custody more expensive in aggregate, not less. The governing principle remains that the child should enjoy a standard of living consistent with both parents’ means. Where one parent’s income is a multiple of the other’s, equal time-sharing without any transfer simply produces two unequal childhoods.
| Cost type | Sensible treatment in shared custody |
|---|---|
| Fixed institutional costs (school, transport, insurance, coaching) | Paid directly to the institution in defined shares proportionate to income; recorded in the order. |
| Calendar-following costs (food, daily travel, recreation) | Borne by each parent during their custodial time. |
| Duplicated household costs (room, clothing, essentials in each home) | Each parent bears their own; relevant when fixing any balancing transfer. |
| Income disparity between homes | Addressed by a periodic balancing payment from the higher-earning to the lower-earning parent. |
Structuring the order
Common friction points
Informal set-offs are the classic trap: a parent who unilaterally deducts “expenses incurred” from an ordered maintenance amount risks execution proceedings. Set-offs belong in the order, not in self-help.
A parent cannot buy out of time-sharing with money, or out of money with time-sharing — custody and maintenance serve different interests of the child, and courts decide each on its own footing.
Where a DV Act case is also pending, monetary relief for the child under Section 20(1)(d) must be coordinated with any Section 144 BNSS or Section 26 HMA order, so that the arrangement is adjusted rather than duplicated.
Keep records: fee receipts, insurance premiums and transfers made for the child are the first exhibits in any later variation or enforcement application.
Frequently Asked Questions
Does shared custody cancel out maintenance?
Not automatically. Where incomes are broadly equal and time is genuinely split, courts can and do structure arrangements with no inter-parent transfer, each side bearing the child’s costs in their own time and sharing fixed costs. But where one parent earns substantially more, a transfer usually remains necessary so that the child enjoys a comparable standard of living in both homes.
Which provisions govern child maintenance?
Section 144 of the BNSS (the successor to Section 125 CrPC) obliges a parent with sufficient means to maintain a minor child unable to maintain itself; Section 26 of the Hindu Marriage Act lets the matrimonial court make orders for the children’s maintenance and education; Section 20 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act places the obligation on both father and mother; and Section 20(1)(d) of the DV Act covers monetary relief for the children of an aggrieved woman.
How are school fees handled in shared arrangements?
The cleanest structure routes fixed, invoice-based costs — school fees, transport, medical insurance — through direct payment to the institution or insurer in agreed shares, with the periodic maintenance amount confined to the variable costs of the child’s daily life. Direct payments should be recorded in the order itself so that compliance is verifiable.
Can the amount change if the custody pattern changes?
Yes. Maintenance orders are always alterable on change of circumstances — Section 146 BNSS for orders under Section 144, and the matrimonial court’s continuing jurisdiction for orders under Section 26 HMA. A material shift in the time-sharing pattern, in either parent’s income, or in the child’s needs supports an application to vary.