Supreme Court of India· 20 August 2026

Under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, does a wife's own earnings, by itself, justify halving the father's interim maintenance liability for their children?

SUJATA KUMARI & ORS v. RAHUL KUMAR & ANR

2026 INSC 896 · SLP (CRIMINAL) No.9661 of 2026
Coram: Vikram Nath; Sandeep Mehta

🔖 Save this judgment 🔔 Follow Section 125 of the Code of Crimi…📬 Get today's judgments

View the original judgment PDFFree to read. To download it — or the LexStreak typeset copy with the headnote and Points of Law — create an account; downloads are part of the Pro plan.

Answer

No. The obligation to maintain children is shared by both parents but cannot be divided by arithmetic alone; the wife also earning is not, by itself, ground to halve the father's liability, since her care of the children while she also works is a real contribution.

Headnote

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Section 125 — Interim maintenance — Revisional interference — Shared parental obligation — CrPC, 1973 — s.125 — Interim maintenance — Revisional interference — Held: A revisional court cannot reduce interim maintenance fixed by the Family Court without a finding that its assessment was perverse or that the amount awarded was excessive; it gave no such finding here. (¶9) CrPC, 1973 — s.125 — Shared parental obligation — Non-monetary contribution — Held further: The obligation to maintain children is shared by both parents, but is not divided by arithmetic alone; the wife also earning is not, by itself, ground to halve the father's liability, since her care of the children is a real contribution too. (¶9, 10) CrPC, 1973 — s.125 — Interim order restored — Held further: The High Court's order reducing interim maintenance is set aside and the Family Court's order restored, with arrears payable within three months; the main maintenance petition remains to be decided on its own merits. Appeal allowed. (¶14, 15, 16)

In the Court's own words

Paragraph 9We are unable to sustain the reasoning of the High Court. The impugned order gives no reason for CRL. APPEAL @ SLP (CRL) No.9661 of 2026 5 interfering with the order of the Family Court other than the fact that the appellant-wife is also earning. The High Court did not find the assessment of the Family Court to be perverse, nor did it find the sum of Rs.60,000/- (Rupees Sixty Thousand only) per month to be excessive. It in fact held that sum to be sufficient for the two daughters, having regard to the status of their parents. Nothing else was said by the High Court while modifying the Family Court's order.

Paragraph 10That the appellant-wife earns is not, by itself, a reason to halve the father's liability. The obligation to maintain the children is shared by both parents, but it cannot be divided by arithmetic alone. The daughters live with the appellant-wife, who looks after their daily needs and upbringing while also working. Such care cannot be measured in money, but it is a real contribution, and often the greater one

Acts & Sections

Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

One judgment a day. That's the whole habit.

Read the full text of SUJATA KUMARI & ORS v. RAHUL KUMAR & ANR — and get the Supreme Court's output as a five-minute daily read, with plain-language headnotes and the questions each judgment settles.

Create my free account

Free forever plan · 30 seconds · data stays in India

Open the full judgment →

Also decided in this judgment

Can a revisional court reduce interim maintenance awarded under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure without finding the Family Court's assessment perverse or the amount excessive?Does the amount fixed as interim maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure prejudge the final adjudication of the main maintenance petition?

Plain-language answer prepared by the LexStreak Editorial Desk — verify against the judgment. Source: Supreme Court of India. Corrections