In a compelling judgment, the Delhi High Court has reaffirmed that maintenance for children is not an act of charity by one parent but a fundamental acknowledgment of shared parental responsibility and a child’s right to be supported. Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma, who authored the decision, emphasized the need to respect and quantify the caregiving efforts of custodial parents, irrespective of gender. “It is both appropriate and necessary to recognize their efforts with respect and without reductive labels,” the Court noted, highlighting that caregiving must be understood in monetary terms, no matter whether the parent is a mother or a father.
The case involved a husband challenging a trial court order directing him to pay ₹50,000 per month in interim maintenance for two minor children. The husband argued that the amount was excessive and that the mother, being employed as a stenographer, should equally bear the costs of raising the children. However, the Court found discrepancies in the husband’s claims and observed that he had made vague assertions while failing to disclose accurate financial documents, particularly those related to his grocery business. This led the Court to believe that he was attempting to project an unrealistically low income to evade his legal obligations.
Importantly, the Court rejected the notion that maintenance should be viewed as a burden on or punishment for the non-custodial parent. It firmly held that a custodial parent—though parenting independently—does not live in isolation. The presence of children and the responsibilities that come with their upbringing constitute a family unit. The Court underscored that custodial parents should never be seen as seeking charity or alms; instead, their efforts deserve formal recognition, especially when they are managing the dual roles of caregiver and professional.
Dr. Justice Sharma further pointed out that societal perceptions often regard a father’s custodial role as more challenging due to professional demands and gender norms. However, she noted, the same logic must apply to working mothers who frequently navigate equal, if not greater, challenges. “This case is, in many ways, an acknowledgment—if not a tribute—to all working custodial parents, irrespective of gender, who strive each day to maintain equilibrium between their obligations as caregivers and professionals,” she wrote.
What stood out in this case was that the wife was not seeking maintenance for herself but solely for the children, even though the husband earned nearly twice her income. Despite holding a demanding job that requires focus, discipline, and long hours, she continued to shoulder the primary responsibility for her children's upbringing. The Court’s judgment powerfully reiterates that maintenance is not a favour—it is a legal and moral duty rooted in equality and the best interests of the child.
Link to the Judgment: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1rS604f0tVvj7sHKypskBanS_un4ilcw3/view?usp=drivesdk