Working mothers shouldn't be burdened as fathers evade duty: HC on child maintenance
text_fields
The Delhi High Court has held that the law does not require a working mother to exhaust herself “physically, emotionally, and financially” while the father shields himself behind selective or misleading disclosures of income. While making this observation, the court modified the interim child maintenance payable by a husband from ₹30,000 to ₹25,000 per month, despite his claim that he earns only ₹9,000 a month.
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma was hearing a petition filed by the husband challenging a 2023 trial court order that directed him to pay ₹30,000 per month as interim maintenance — ₹10,000 each for the couple’s three minor children — to be deposited directly into the wife’s bank account, as she has custody of all three.
The court observed that a working mother cannot be burdened to single-handedly shoulder the physical, emotional, and financial responsibility of raising children while the father attempts to evade his obligations through technical pleas and questionable income disclosures. It noted that the wife had not sought any maintenance for herself or claimed rental expenses, despite living with her parents along with the children, and was concerned only with securing maintenance for their welfare.
Emphasising that maintaining minor children is not merely a statutory obligation but also a legal, moral, and social responsibility of both parents, the court said that maintenance goes beyond bare subsistence and includes education, healthcare, upbringing, and a standard of living consistent with the parents’ means and status.
In its December 27 order, the court reduced the interim maintenance amount to ₹25,000 per month for the three children, stressing that the paramount consideration in such cases must always be the welfare of the children and the dignity of a working woman. These considerations, it said, cannot be undermined by prima facie artificial financial arrangements or claims made by either parent.
The court further noted that a woman’s employment does not absolve her of the multiple burdens associated with child-rearing and that maintenance proceedings reflect that parenthood is about responsibility, not convenience. Financial disclosures, the court added, must be assessed in light of social realities and the material placed on record.
Rejecting the husband’s argument that the wife was acting out of a “sense of entitlement”, Justice Sharma said her conduct reflected responsibility towards the children and an effort to ensure that the other parent recognises and fulfils his obligations.
The court also cautioned against equating employment with financial sufficiency, pointing out that the wife was carrying a dual burden of professional responsibilities and the sole care of three minor children. Maintenance cases, it said, cannot be decided in isolation and must align with settled legal principles and lived social realities.
During arguments, the husband’s counsel claimed that his client, a homoeopathic pharmacist, was financially incapable of paying ₹30,000 per month as he earned only ₹9,000. It was also argued that the wife had left the matrimonial home without sufficient cause and was earning around ₹45,000 per month while working at a university.
Opposing the plea, the wife’s counsel submitted that both parents share equal legal, moral, and social responsibility towards their children, and the wife’s employment does not absolve the husband of his duty. It was stated that the wife earns about ₹35,000 per month and is bearing all expenses related to the children, including education, medical care, tuition, and daily needs. The counsel also pointed out that the husband holds an MBA degree and a diploma in homoeopathy, uses credit cards, and has expenditures that indicate a standard of living inconsistent with his claimed income.
The couple married in 2014 and have three minor children. They separated in 2022 after the wife allegedly faced dowry harassment and physical, emotional, and economic abuse. She later approached the sessions court seeking compensation under domestic violence laws and interim relief for the children, following which the trial court ordered the husband to pay ₹30,000 as interim maintenance, now modified by the High Court.