Mother Claiming Financial Capacity To Get Child Custody Cannot Fasten Entire Financial Burden On Father: Allahabad High Court

"The revisionist no. 1, having asserted her financial capacity and obtained custody of the child on that basis, cannot seek to fasten the entire financial burden of the minor exclusively upon the father." Allahabad High Court, in a significant ruling, held that a working mother who secures custody of her child by asserting her own financial capability cannot later seek to place the entire financial burden of the child's maintenance exclusively upon the father.

A single-judge bench of Justice Lakshmi Kant Shukla observed that when a mother is earning sufficiently, the reasonable expenses of the minor child must be shared proportionately between both parents.

Revisionist Roji Bano approached the High Court challenging an August 2025 order passed by the Family Court in Prayagraj under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. The trial court had granted an interim maintenance of Rs. 3,000 per month to her minor daughter while rejecting the mother's claim for personal maintenance. The mother filed the present criminal revision seeking maintenance for herself and an enhancement of the amount awarded to her daughter, arguing she had resigned from her job and had no independent means of income.

The primary question before the court was whether a working mother who obtains child custody on the specific grounds of her financial self-sufficiency is entitled to claim interim maintenance for herself. The court was also called upon to determine if the entire financial burden of maintaining the minor child could be fastened exclusively upon the father in such circumstances.

Mother's Admission Of Financial Capacity

The High Court noted that the mother had deliberately sought and obtained custody of the minor daughter through a habeas corpus petition by explicitly asserting that she was financially capable of maintaining both herself and the child. The bench observed that the trial court correctly relied on this specific assertion to deny her individual maintenance. The State and the husband had produced her salary slip showing a monthly income of Rs. 14,125, establishing her capacity to sustain herself.

Proportionate Sharing Of Child's Expenses

Relying heavily on the landmark Supreme Court decision in Rajnesh v. Neha (2021) 2 SCC 324, the court emphasised that child maintenance is a joint responsibility when both parents are earning. The court highlighted that while educational and living expenses are ordinarily borne by the father, this dynamic shifts significantly if the mother is also gainfully employed and earning a sufficient income.

"Although the reasonable expenses of the minor child, including those relating to food, clothing, residence, medical care and education, are required to be adequately provided for and the 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."

Concealment In Mandatory Affidavit

The court took adverse note of the fact that the revisionist mother had left the column regarding her occupation and income completely blank in her mandatory disclosure affidavit. This affidavit was filed in purported compliance with the Supreme Court's directives in Rajnesh v. Neha. Furthermore, the bench observed that the mother failed to produce any documentary evidence to substantiate her claim that she had resigned from her contractual job due to pressure from the husband.

No Grounds For Enhancement

Addressing the prayer for enhancing the Rs. 3,000 monthly maintenance awarded to the minor daughter, the High Court found no justification to alter the trial court's assessment. The bench reasoned that an enhancement under Section 125 Cr.P.C. requires specific proof of changed circumstances, which was entirely absent in the present case.

"In the absence of any cogent material showing a substantial increase in the actual and reasonable expenses of the minor daughter, any material enhancement in the income of the father, or any subsequent deterioration in the financial condition of the revisionist, no sufficient ground is made out..."

Dismissing the criminal revision, the High Court concluded that the Family Court had passed a well-reasoned and balanced order after considering all relevant materials on record. The bench affirmed that the interim maintenance of Rs. 3,000 per month for the minor daughter was adequate, and the mother's individual claim was rightfully rejected given her demonstrated financial capacity.

Date of Decision: 14 July 2026