Earning Mother Cannot Shift Entire Child's Financial Burden To Father: Allahabad High Court

The Allahabad High Court recently refused to enhance interim maintenance awarded to a minor daughter and upheld the rejection of interim maintenance to her mother, observing that an earning mother who obtained custody of the child by asserting her financial capability cannot subsequently seek to place the entire financial responsibility upon the father.

The bench Justice Lakshmi Kant Shukla dismissed a criminal revision challenging a family court order that had awarded ₹3,000 per month as interim maintenance to the minor daughter while declining interim maintenance to the mother under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure [corresponding to Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS)].

The mother had contended that the amount awarded to the child was meagre and inadequate to meet her expenses. She also argued that the Family Court wrongly concluded that she was capable of maintaining herself. According to her, she had worked on a contractual basis for only three months before resigning due to pressure allegedly exerted by her husband, a fact that she claimed the Family Court ignored.

The husband opposed the revision, arguing that the Family Court had considered all relevant material before passing its order. He relied on a salary slip showing that the mother earned ₹14,125 per month and pointed out that she had not disclosed her occupation or income in the affidavit filed in compliance with the Supreme Court's directions in Rajnesh v. Neha and another (2021). He also submitted that there was no documentary proof that she had resigned from her employment.

Why did the Allahabad High Court refuse to enhance the child's maintenance?

Answering this, the high court noted that the mother had earlier secured custody of the minor child by specifically asserting before the court that she was financially capable of maintaining and properly caring for her daughter. The family court had also recorded a finding that she was capable of maintaining herself before rejecting her claim for interim maintenance.

The high court then referred to paragraphs 91 and 92 of the Supreme Court's judgment in Rajnesh v. Neha. It observed that although the reasonable expenses of a minor child, including food, clothing, residence, medical care and education, must be adequately provided for, and educational expenses are ordinarily to be borne by the father, where the mother is also working and earning sufficiently, such expenses may be shared proportionately between both parents.

Court held that having asserted her financial capacity to obtain custody, the mother could not subsequently seek to place the entire financial burden of raising the child exclusively upon the father.

Why was the mother's own maintenance claim rejected?

The high court found that there was no cogent material demonstrating any substantial increase in the child's actual and reasonable expenses, any material enhancement in the father's income, or any subsequent deterioration in the mother's financial condition. In the absence of such evidence, court held that there was no justification either for granting interim maintenance to the mother or for enhancing the maintenance already awarded to the child.

Concluding that the family court had passed a reasoned order after considering all relevant material on record, the high court found no ground to interfere with its decision and dismissed the criminal revision.

Case Title: Roji Bano And Another vs. State of U.P. and Another

Order Date: July 14, 2026

Bench: Justice Lakshmi Kant Shukla