The Allahabad High Court has held that the responsibility for maintaining a minor child cannot be fastened exclusively on either parent, observing that both parents are ordinarily required to contribute towards the child's maintenance according to their respective means and financial capacity.

The Court further held that an earning mother cannot altogether disclaim her responsibility to contribute towards the maintenance and other expenses of her children, particularly where her income is higher than that of the father.

A Bench of Justice Lakshmi Kant Shukla made these observations while dismissing a criminal revision filed by a woman and her two children challenging a Family Court order awarding maintenance of ₹1,500 per month to each of her two minor children under Section 125 CrPC.

The Family Court had rejected the woman's claim for maintenance from her husband but directed him to pay maintenance for the two children.

The High Court examined the scheme of Section 125 CrPC, particularly Section 125(1)(b) and (c), which provides for maintenance of minor children who are unable to maintain themselves.

The Court noted that the provision refers to a child claiming maintenance from his or her “father or mother” and held that the statutory obligation cannot be construed as falling exclusively upon the father.

The Bench observed that the use of the expression “his” in Section 125 could not be understood as restricting the obligation to a male parent. The Court remarked thus:

"The obligation to maintain a minor child is not to be fastened exclusively upon either the father or the mother…Ordinarily, both parents are required to contribute towards the maintenance and upbringing of their child in accordance with their respective means and financial capacity".

The Court accordingly held that, while determining maintenance under Section 125 CrPC, the financial circumstances and capacity of both parents have to be considered.

Applying the principle to the facts of the case, the High Court noted that the wife herself had made statements regarding the expenses incurred by her and the children.

The Court also noted the material before the Family Court indicating that the woman was earning through coaching.

According to the husband's case, the wife's income was higher than his. The husband was stated to be working as an Instructor in a Junior High School and earning ₹9,000 per month, whereas the wife's own statements regarding her expenses indicated that she was earning sufficient income to meet her personal and the children's expenses.

In these circumstances, the High Court held that the mother could not completely disclaim her obligation to contribute towards the children's maintenance. The Court observed thus:

"The responsibility of bringing up and maintaining the children is ordinarily to be shared by both parents in accordance with their respective means and financial capacity and cannot be fastened exclusively upon one of them".

The Bench added that, since the mother's income was higher than the father's, she could not altogether disclaim her responsibility to contribute towards the maintenance and other expenses of the children.

The criminal revision had been filed by Archana Rao and two minor children challenging the order passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Jaunpur.

The Family Court had awarded ₹1,500 per month each to the two minor children, while declining to award maintenance to the wife.

The wife had contended before the High Court that she had no independent source of income and was residing with her father and the children.

She also argued that the amount awarded for the children was inadequate to meet their basic needs and that her husband had a substantially higher income than the Family Court had considered.

The husband opposed the revision and relied upon the wife's own statement concerning her monthly expenditure. He also relied upon her admission regarding her coaching work.

The High Court said that the social and economic circumstances and the financial capacity of both parents are relevant when determining contributions towards the maintenance and upbringing of minor children.

Thus, the fact that children reside with one parent does not, by itself, mean that the entire financial responsibility must be placed on that parent or on the other parent alone.

The Court ultimately found no ground to interfere with the Family Court's order and dismissed the criminal revision.