Earning Parents Must Equally Share Child Maintenance Liability When Both Possess Sufficient Independent Means

The Applicant No. 1 (a Judicial Magistrate) and the Non-Applicant (an Additional Collector/SDM) were married on December 3, 2017

Following allegations of dowry harassment, mental cruelty, and a forced miscarriage, Applicant No. 1 filed for maintenance under Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) for herself and her minor son, Applicant No. 2

The Non-Applicant denied the allegations, contending that Applicant No. 1 lived separately due to her professional postings and had voluntarily sought an abortion to protect her probationary status

On March 9, 2026, the Principal Family Judge, Raipur, determined that since both parents are high-ranking government officials with independent incomes, they should share the child's maintenance equally.

The trial court fixed the total maintenance for the child at ₹30,000 per month, ordering the Non-Applicant to pay ₹15,000 per month

The Applicants moved the High Court in revision seeking enhancement, alleging the trial court ignored the Non-Applicant’s conduct and inflation

The Court applied Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), which governs the maintenance of wives and children

It also considered Section 7 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, regarding the jurisdiction and powers of the Family Court

The primary legal principle utilized was the equitable apportionment of maintenance responsibilities between two earning parents, proportionate to their respective financial statuses and the needs of the child

The Court evaluated the financial standing of both parties, noting that both are in stable government service—Applicant No. 1 as a Judicial Magistrate and the Non-Applicant as an Additional Collector

The Court observed that the Family Court had balanced the child’s educational, medical, and upbringing requirements against the high social and financial status of both parents

The High Court reasoned that because both parents possess significant earning capacities, the trial court’s decision to divide the ₹30,000 maintenance obligation equally (₹15,000 each) was just and reasonable

Regarding the allegations of cruelty and forced abortion, the Court found that these did not shift the primary financial responsibility solely onto the father when the mother was equally capable of contributing to the child's welfare

Consequently, the Court found no perversity or infirmity in the trial court's assessment

The Court upheld the Family Court's direction that the Non-Applicant pay ₹15,000 per month (half of the total ₹30,000) to Applicant No. 2 from the date of the application (April 30, 2025)

The revision was dismissed as being devoid of merit