The Madras High Court recently held that the dignity of a woman cannot be attacked merely for seeking maintenance which is legally due to her child. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 538]
Justice MD Sumathi added that the end of a marriage does not end the father's responsibility. The court also added that a mother's ability to earn would not diminish the father's responsibility.
“The message that must emerge from this case is clear. The end of a marriage cannot be treated as the end of a father's responsibility. A mother's ability to earn cannot be used as a reason to diminish the father's obligation. A woman's dignity cannot be attacked merely because she seeks the financial contribution legally due for her child. And a child who is already affected by the separation of its parents must not be made to endure further distress through avoidable and prolonged disputes over its basic needs,” the court said.
The court also expressed strong disapproval in the manner in which women, seeking maintenance, were being termed as “gold-diggers”. The court held that such expressions shift the attention from the actual question of legal responsibility and try to put the character of the woman on trial, rather than the merits of the claim.
“This Court considers it necessary to express its disapproval of the tendency to stigmatize women who seek financial support by describing them as “gold diggers” or by attributing ulterior financial motives to them without adequate basis. Such expressions are particularly objectionable when the demand concerns the education, healthcare and upbringing of a minor child. They shift attention away from the actual question of legal responsibility and attempt to place the character of the woman, rather than the merits of the claim, on trial,” the court observed.
The court added that a woman would have to take up multiple responsibilities after the breakdown of marriage. It remarked that when such a woman approached the court seeking legal maintenance for the legitimate needs of the child, terming her a “gold-digger” is not just demeaning but reflects the deeply unfair attitude towards the responsibilities undertaken by her after marriage.
“Such expressions are not merely unkind words uttered in the heat of a dispute. When used to demean a mother who approaches the court for the legitimate needs of her child, they reflect a deeply unfair attitude towards the responsibilities undertaken by women after the breakdown of a marriage. A woman who asks for money towards her child's education, medical treatment, food and other necessities is not, merely by making such a demand, seeking to enrich herself at the expense of the father. She may simply be asking him to discharge the responsibility that the law and parenthood place upon him,” the court said.
The court was hearing a criminal revision petition filed by a father against the family court's order directing him to pay Rs 6,14,887 towards maintenance-related expenses of his daughter. The mother had originally filed the maintenance petition seeking maintenance for herself and the minor daughter.
During the pendency of proceedings, the parties entered a compromise by which the husband undertook to discharge the mortgage over the flat and settle the property jointly with the wife in favour of the minor daughter, with the wife acting as guardian without alienation of property. The father also undertook to continue paying maintenance and meeting expenses of the daughter until the settlement was completed.
When the father did not fulfil the terms of compromise, the mother had again approached the court seeking recovery of the amounts due. The Family Court had directed the father to pay Rs 6,14,887.
While seeking revision of this order, the father claimed that the Family Court had mechanically accepted the bills, that the mother could have claimed insurance for the medical expenses of the child and that the mother's intention was to extract money from him.
The court noted that the family court had not mechanically accepted the entire claim of the mother but had considered the rival accounts, gave credit for payments which were established and excluded the expenses which were outside the court's earlier order. The court thus held that the order reflected an item-wise assessment rather than an unexamined acceptance of the claim.
With respect to the husband's argument that the mother's intention was to extract money, the court held that such an allegation cannot be a ground to deny the legitimate expenses incurred for the welfare of the child.
The court also added that though the mother is employed as a professor, it would not absolve the father of his obligation to maintain the minor daughter. The court observed that the responsibility of maintaining the child cannot be shifted entirely on the mother merely because she is financially capable of maintaining herself.
“The employment or financial independence of the mother does not extinguish the father's independent legal and moral responsibility towards the child. The responsibility of providing for the child cannot be shifted entirely upon the mother merely because she is financially capable of maintaining herself,” the court said.
Thus, finding no reason to interfere with the Family Court's order, the court dismissed the plea.
Counsel for Petitioner: Mr. D. V. Omprakash
Counsel for Respondent: Mr. R. Raja for Mr. T. R. Jeyapalam