Working mother with sufficient income cannot shift entire financial burden of child maintenance onto the father.

The revisionists (mother and minor daughter) challenged an interim maintenance order dated 26.08.2025 passed by the Family Court, Prayagraj.

The Trial Court had granted Rs. 3,000/- per month to the minor daughter but rejected the mother’s (Revisionist No. 1) claim for maintenance.

Revisionist No. 1 argued that she was unemployed and the amount for the child was meager.

The opposite party (husband) presented salary slips showing Revisionist No. 1 earned Rs. 14,125/- and noted she had previously obtained custody of the child in a habeas corpus petition by asserting she was financially capable of maintaining herself and the child.

1. Whether the Trial Court erred in law by rejecting the claim for interim maintenance of Revisionist No. 1 despite her claim of being unemployed.

2. Whether the interim maintenance of Rs. 3,000/- awarded to the minor daughter was insufficient and required enhancement.

Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. regarding the maintenance of wives and children.

Principles established by the Supreme Court in Rajnesh v. Neha and another (2021) 2 SCC 324, specifically paragraphs 91 and 92, which dictate that while fathers are ordinarily responsible for educational expenses, where a mother is working and earning sufficiently, the financial burden of the child's expenses—including food, clothing, and medical care—may be shared proportionately between both parents.

The Court observed that Revisionist No. 1 failed to disclose her income or occupation in the mandatory affidavit required by Rajnesh v. Neha, whereas the husband produced evidence of her monthly salary.

The Court highlighted a critical contradiction: Revisionist No. 1 had previously secured custody of the minor daughter by asserting her financial independence and capability in a habeas corpus proceeding.

Applying the Rajnesh precedent, the Court reasoned that since the mother is earning and had voluntarily asserted her capacity to provide for the child to gain custody, she cannot now shift the entire financial burden exclusively to the father.

No evidence was presented to show a substantial change in circumstances or a deterioration in her financial status since the original order.

The Court held that a mother who is earning sufficiently and has obtained custody based on financial capability must share the child's maintenance costs proportionately.

The Criminal Revision was dismissed, and the interim maintenance for the minor daughter remained at Rs. 3,000/- per month with no maintenance granted to Revisionist No. 1.