Earning Mother Need Not Be Impleaded In Child Maintenance Claim Against Father But Court Must Assess Joint Income: Allahabad HC

A bench of Justice Madan Pal Singh, however, directed that in such cases, the trial court must consider the financial capacity of both earning parents while determining the final maintenance amount based on the principle of shared parental responsibility.

The single judge passed this order while hearing a criminal revision petition filed by the father challenging an August 2025 order passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Azamgarh.

In essence, the Family Court had rejected his application to implead his child's mother (wife of the revisionist) in a maintenance plea filed by the minor daughter under Section 144 BNSS.

The revisionist-father, working as a Railway Clerk, informed the Court that he earns about Rs. 41,000 per month. He pointed out that his wife (the mother of his minor child) works as a Police Constable and earns approximately Rs. 55,000 per month.

His counsel argued that, since both are earning members, the responsibility for maintaining their daughter is joint.

He placed reliance on the Supreme Court's judgment in Chandu Sridevi vs Chandu Sesha Rao (2023), wherein it was observed that where both parents are earning, they have a shared responsibility to maintain their children and provide them the best possible upbringing.

On the other hand, the counsel for the minor child argued that the applicant, being the master of the proceedings, is entitled to choose the parties against whom the relief is sought.

It was further contended that the father cannot evade or dilute his statutory obligation by insisting on the mother's impleadment.

After perusing the records, the High Court noted that the Family Court had rightly rejected the impleadment application.

The Court observed that proceedings under Section 144 BNSS are summary in nature, and there is no specific provision in the criminal procedure for impleading a party in the manner contemplated under Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Justice Singh added that the applicant in such cases is the Dominus Litis, and the person initiating a legal proceeding has the absolute prerogative to choose the parties against whom they seek relief.

The Court further stressed that merely because the minor child's mother is also earning income does not absolve the father of his statutory obligation to maintain the child.

"The liability of the father to maintain his minor child is a legal and moral obligation and the revisionist cannot seek to avoid or postpone such liability by insisting that the mother must first be impleaded as a party to the proceedings", Justice Singh noted.

At the same time, the Court observed that when both parents are earning members, the responsibility of maintaining the child is a shared and joint responsibility.

Consequently, the Court directed that while deciding the main application, the Family Court shall take into consideration the income and financial capacity of both parents.

"…while deciding the main application under Section 144 BNSS, the learned Family Court shall take into consideration the income and financial capacity of both parents and determine the amount of maintenance in a just and reasonable manner keeping in view the principle of shared parental responsibility and the welfare of the minor child", the Court remarked as it dismissed the plea.