Working Mother Who Got Child Custody Claiming Financial Capability Can't Fasten Entire Maintenance Burden On Father: Allahabad High Court

A bench of Justice Lakshmi Kant Shukla thus dismissed a criminal revision plea filed by a woman and her minor daughter challenging a Family Court's order passed on their application for maintenance filed under Section 125 CrPC.

Case in brief

In the August 2025 order, the Family Court rejected the woman's claim for interim maintenance while granting Rs. 3000/- per month as interim maintenance for the child.

Before the High Court, the mother contended that the maintenance awarded to the child was meagre and grossly insufficient.

She claimed she had no means to support herself, but the Trial Court wrongly found that she was able to do so.

She also submitted that in the year 2022, she worked on a contract basis only for 3 months and thereafter, due to pressure made by Husband/opposite party no. 2, she had to resign from her job.

The husband, on the other hand, submitted documentary evidence, including a salary slip showing that the woman earns Rs. 14,125 per month.

He submitted that there is no documentary evidence on record to show that revisionist no. 1 has resigned from her job.

It was also pointed out that in the affidavit filed by the revisionist, in compliance with the direction of the Supreme Court in Rajnesh v. Neha and another 2021, she deliberately did not fill the column of occupation and income and left it blank.

The husband also highlighted that the minor daughter had previously been living with him and was being maintained by him.

However, he further claimed, the mother filed a habeas corpus petition to claim custody, wherein she had claimed that she was fully capable of maintaining herself as well as her minor daughter. Based on this specific assertion, the custody was handed over to her.

High Court's Observations

Finding merits in the submissions made by the husband, the High Court noted that the Family Court had rightly recorded a finding that the woman was capable of maintaining herself.

Relying on the Apex Court's judgment in Rajnesh v. Neha, Justice Shukla observed thus:

"...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".

The bench further noted that since the woman had obtained the custody of the child by asserting her financial capacity, she cannot now seek to fasten the entire financial burden of the minor exclusively upon the father.

The Court concluded that 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 was made out either to grant interim maintenance to the revisionist no. 1 in her individual capacity or to enhance the maintenance already awarded to the revisionist no. 2, parties' minor daughter.

Thus, finding no good ground to interfere with the Family Court's reasoned order, the High Court dismissed the criminal revision petition.

Counsel for Revisionist(s): Akhilesh Kumar Vishwakarma, Anil Kumar Singh, Ranjeet Singh

Counsel for Opposite Party(s): Ehtesham Khan, G.A.

Case Title - Roji Bano And Another v. State of U.P. and Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 418