Paternal obligation to maintain minor child remains absolute despite mother’s financial independence or higher income.

The applicant (wife) and respondent (husband) were married on 24.11.2017, and a daughter (applicant No. 2) was born from the wedlock.

Asserting neglect and refusal to maintain, the applicants filed for maintenance under Section 125 CrPC before the Family Court, Durg.

On 15.01.2026, the Family Court rejected the wife’s claim for maintenance, finding her well-educated and financially independent, but awarded ₹3,000 per month to the minor daughter.

The applicants filed the present criminal revision seeking enhancement of the daughter’s maintenance, contending that the amount is inadequate given the respondent's salary as an Assistant Public Relations Officer (approx. ₹35,000 per month) and the rising cost of living.

Whether the maintenance amount of ₹3,000 per month awarded to the minor child is grossly inadequate warranting enhancement in revisional jurisdiction.

Whether the Family Court committed any jurisdictional error or illegality in dismissing the wife’s claim and fixing the child’s maintenance at the specified quantum.

The court's reasoning was guided by Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), which mandates the maintenance of a minor child as an absolute statutory obligation of the father.

The court also referenced the principles established by the Supreme Court in *Rajnesh v. Neha* and *Gaurav Nagpal v. Sumedha Nagpal*, which stipulate that the welfare, dignity, and reasonable comfort of the child are paramount considerations, and that a child is entitled to a standard of living proportionate to that of the father.

The High Court examined the Family Court’s findings and observed that the trial court properly evaluated the financial status of both parties.

It noted that the wife (applicant No. 1) was financially independent and earning more than the respondent, which justified the denial of her claim.

Regarding the child, the court acknowledged the father's moral and legal obligation but found that the Family Court had already balanced the income of both parents and the overall circumstances of the case.

The Court concluded that the assessment of ₹3,000 per month was not "on the lower side" given the specific facts and that the Family Court did not disregard settled principles or commit any jurisdictional error that would justify interference under revisional powers.

The Court found the revision to be devoid of merit and dismissed it, thereby upholding the Family Court's order dated 15.01.2026.