Working Mothers Can't Be Forced To Exhaust Themselves While Fathers Evade Responsibility Of Child: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has “outrightly rejected” the argument that a working mother seeking maintenance for her minor children reflects misuse of maintenance laws or a sense of entitlement, holding that courts must recognise the dual burden borne by custodial mothers and ensure that fathers do not evade their parental responsibilities.

Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma observed,

“A Court of law cannot burden, nor does the law mandate, that the working mother should be forced to exhaust herself physically, emotionally, and financially, and allow the father to take refuge behind selective, misleading disclosures about his income and technical pleas.”

The bench was dealing with a petition filed by the husband, challenging the interim maintenance order in a matrimonial dispute involving three minor children.

Petitioner argued that since the wife was earning about ₹34,000 per month, her claim for maintenance for the children was unjustified and indicative of misuse of the law.

The High Court however held that mere employment of the primary caregiver, the wife in this case, cannot be equated with financial sufficiency.

The Court observed that a working mother, who has custody of minor children, is often compelled to shoulder a dual responsibility of earning as well as providing day-to-day care, and such effort reflects responsibility, not entitlement.

“The earning capacity of the working parent, whether husband or wife, in whose custody the minor children are, does not erase or diminish that parent‟s responsibility as a caregiver, who continues to bear the burden of shouldering the dual responsibility of earning as well as being the primary caregiver to the minor children. In such cases, the obligation of the father towards the minor children does not diminish merely because the wife has been forced to shoulder this dual responsibility.”

Reliance was placed on Padmja Sharma v. Ratan Lal Sharma (2000) where the Supreme Court observed that where both parents are earning, they are required to contribute towards the maintenance of their children in proportion to their respective incomes.

Similarly, in Rajnesh v. Neha (2021) the Top Court held that while expenses may be shared proportionately if the wife is earning, the primary obligation to meet educational and essential expenses ordinarily rests upon the father.

In the case at hand the Court noted that while the Petitioner claimed to earn a meager ₹9,000 per month, he was a qualified man and his ITRs reflected otherwise.

As such the Court affirmed the findings of the Trial Court but reduced the maintenance from ₹30,000/- per month to ₹25,000/- per month.

Appearance: Mr. Amit Gupta, Mr. Prateek Mehta, Mr. Kshitij Vaibhav, Ms. Muskan Nagpal, Advocates for Petitioner; Ms. Shaini Bhardwaj, Ms. Rukhsar and Mr. Vedic Thukral, Advocates for Respondent

Case title: HM v. RM

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1802

Case no.: CRL.REV.P. 723/2024

Click Here To Read/Download Order