When both parents earn, how should the burden of maintaining children be shared? In Sujata Kumari & Ors. v. Rahul Kumar & Anr., 2026 INSC 896, decided on 20 August 2026, the Supreme Court answered that question with unusual clarity: the mother's income is relevant, but it is not a licence to mechanically halve the father's liability — because the daily care a resident parent provides is itself a real contribution that money does not capture.
The dispute: two doctors, two daughters, three courts
The parties were both medical professionals. The wife, a gynaecologist, earned about Rs 1,50,000 a month; the husband, a paediatrician holding MBBS and MD qualifications, disclosed an income of about Rs 2,00,000 a month. After the marriage broke down, the wife and the couple's two minor daughters, aged nine and eight, sought maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
The Family Court awarded interim maintenance of Rs 30,000 per month for each daughter — Rs 60,000 in all. In revision, the High Court halved the award to Rs 15,000 per daughter, reasoning that the mother was herself a well-earning professional who ought to share the financial burden equally.
A Bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta, in Criminal Appeal arising out of SLP (Criminal) No. 9661 of 2026, set aside the High Court's order and restored the Family Court's award in full.
What the Supreme Court held
The Court accepted that the obligation to maintain children is shared by both parents. What it rejected was the arithmetic that followed. In the Court's words, the obligation "cannot be divided by arithmetic alone". Two strands of reasoning stand out.
Care is a contribution
The parent with whom the children live provides daily care, supervision and upbringing. The Court described this as "a real contribution" which "cannot be measured in money" — and which must be weighed when apportioning the financial burden between parents.
Earning is not halving
That the mother earns is not, by itself, a reason to halve the father's liability. The father's income, the children's age, schooling and standard of living remain the primary yardsticks for what the children reasonably need from him.
Applying that approach, the Court found Rs 30,000 per child per month entirely reasonable for a father earning Rs 2,00,000 a month, given the daughters' educational needs and the family's standard of living. The husband was directed to clear the accumulated arrears within three months.
Why the decision matters in practice
Maintenance revisions frequently turn on the argument that a working wife must bear an equal share of the children's expenses, and interim awards are often trimmed on that reasoning alone. This judgment recalibrates that exercise in three ways.
Takeaways for maintenance practice
- The children's claim is assessed against the father's capacity and the children's needs first; the mother's income is a relevant factor, not a dividing formula.
- The custodial parent's unpaid caregiving is a legally recognised contribution to the children's maintenance, to be set against the demand for equal monetary sharing.
- Interim maintenance is meant to be realistic, not token: courts should not reduce a considered Family Court award without engaging with the record.
For litigants in Delhi's family courts, the ruling will be immediately relevant to interim maintenance applications under Section 144 BNSS (the successor to Section 125 CrPC), to pendente lite claims under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, and to monetary relief for children under Section 20 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 — in all of which the "both parents earn, so split it equally" argument is routinely advanced.
The provision today: Section 125 CrPC and Section 144 BNSS
The proceedings arose under Section 125 CrPC because they predate the new criminal codes. From 1 July 2024, fresh applications are made under Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, which carries the same scheme: a summary, protective remedy for wives, children and parents unable to maintain themselves, with interim maintenance expressly provided for. Principles laid down under the old section govern the new one, and this judgment will therefore guide BNSS-era maintenance litigation as well.
The order decides interim maintenance only. The main maintenance petition remains pending before the Family Court, where the final determination will follow full evidence from both sides. Nothing in this article is legal advice; independent advice on specific facts is always advisable.
Frequently Asked Questions
Does a wife's income disentitle children from claiming maintenance from the father?
No. The claim in such cases is the children's, not the wife's. The Supreme Court has now made clear that the mother's employment does not, by itself, justify reducing the father's contribution. Both parents share the obligation, but the court looks at the totality — incomes, the children's needs, and the non-monetary care the custodial parent provides — rather than dividing the figure in half.
What was actually awarded in this case?
The Family Court had awarded Rs 30,000 per month for each of the two minor daughters, Rs 60,000 in total, as interim maintenance under Section 125 CrPC. The High Court reduced this to Rs 15,000 each because the mother was also a well-earning doctor. The Supreme Court set aside that reduction and restored the Family Court's award, directing arrears to be paid within three months.
Is this the final maintenance in the case?
No. The order concerns interim maintenance only. The main petition under Section 125 CrPC (now Section 144 BNSS) remains to be decided by the Family Court on full evidence, where the final figure can be higher or lower depending on the material proved by both sides.
Does Section 125 CrPC still apply after the BNSS came into force?
Proceedings instituted before 1 July 2024 continue under Section 125 CrPC, while fresh applications are filed under Section 144 BNSS, which is substantially identical. The principles laid down by the Supreme Court on maintenance apply equally to both provisions, so this ruling is fully relevant to new BNSS-era applications.