Earning Mother Need Not Be Compulsorily Added in Child Maintenance Case: Allahabad High Court

The Allahabad High Court recently upheld a family court order rejecting a father’s plea to implead the mother of a minor child in maintenance proceedings, while clarifying that the income of both parents must be considered when determining the quantum of maintenance.

Court was dealing with a revision petition against an order dated August 6, 2025, passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Azamgarh, in proceedings under Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (previously Section 125 of the CrPC). The family court had refused to allow the father’s application seeking to add the child’s mother as a party in the maintenance case initiated by the child through her maternal grandfather.

Before the high court, the revisionist contended that he and the child's mother are financially independent. He submitted that he is employed as a Railway Clerk earning approximately ₹41,000 per month, while the mother is working as a Police Constable earning around ₹55,000 per month. On this basis, it was argued that the responsibility to maintain the child is joint and shared, and therefore, the mother ought to have been impleaded in the proceedings.

Reliance was placed on the Supreme Court’s decision in Chandu Sridevi vs. Chandu Sesha Rao (2023), where it was observed that when both parents are earning, they share responsibility for the upbringing and maintenance of their child.

Opposing the plea, counsel for the opposite party submitted that the maintenance application had been filed on behalf of the minor child through her maternal grandfather, and the applicant, being dominus litis, has the right to choose the parties against whom relief is sought. It was further argued that the father cannot evade or dilute his statutory obligation to maintain his minor child by insisting on impleadment of the mother.

The bench of Justice Madan Pal Singh, after considering the rival submissions, noted that the proceedings arose from a maintenance application, which was summary in nature.

Court observed that there is no provision in criminal procedure law akin to Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure that permits impleadment of parties in the manner sought by the revisionist.

Court further held that the opposite party, being dominus litis, has the prerogative to decide against whom relief is to be claimed. It emphasized that merely because the mother is also earning does not absolve the father of his legal and moral obligation to maintain his minor child.

At the same time, court acknowledged the legal position laid down by the Supreme Court that when both parents are earning, the responsibility of maintaining the child is shared. It observed that this principle must be factored in while determining the quantum of maintenance.

Court concluded that no illegality, perversity, or jurisdictional error was found in the family court’s order rejecting the impleadment application, and therefore, no interference was warranted in revisional jurisdiction.

However, the high court clarified that while deciding the main maintenance application, the trial court must take into account the financial status and earning capacity of both parents and determine a just and reasonable amount, keeping in view the principle of shared parental responsibility and the welfare of the minor child.

With these observations, the criminal revision was dismissed, and the trial court was directed to proceed expeditiously and decide the maintenance application in accordance with law.

Case Title: Arvind Kumar vs. State of U.P. and Another

Order Date: March 10, 2026

Bench: Justice Madan Pal Singh