Contribution Of Working Mothers In Raising Child Alone Cannot Be Measured In Money: Bombay High Court Doubles Child's Maintenance

Observing that the efforts of a mother single-handedly raising a child cannot be value in terms of money, the Bombay High Court recently held that even if the wife is earning but has the custody of the child, the husband will have to pay for the expenses of the child and cannot shirk off from his responsibility.

Sitting at the Nagpur seat, single-judge Justice Urmila Joshi-Phalke while enhancing the monthly maintenance to a child from Rs 15,000 to Rs 30,000, highlighted the efforts put in by a mother to raise a child alone, especially by working mothers.

"The contribution of working mother in such circumstances cannot be measured merely in monetary terms. Her physical presence, emotional support, and other tasks such as supervision of homework, school routines, healthcare, meals, and moral guidance constitute a full-time responsibility that runs parallel to her professional life and cannot be measured in monetary terms. She does not have the liberty to relax after work, for her second shift begins at home with responsibilities that are demanding and yet deeply formative for the children," the judge observed in the April 8 order.

While adjudicating the claims for maintenance, especially in cases involving minor children, the Court is not merely mediating a financial dispute between a husband and a wife, rather, it is addressing the complex realities of a family where the focus must be on the welfare of the children, while also ensuring dignity and fairness to both the parents, the court said.

A child who is living with a single parent, the judge opined, should not feel deprived, either materially or emotionally and that maintenance must ensure that the child is able to live with the same dignity as he would have, had been living with both the parents, particularly with the financial security that may have come from the father's support.

"The issue is not merely of the sustenance, but about preserving the child's self-esteem, continuity in education, lifestyle, and access to opportunities. The Court has to consider the needs of a vulnerable child and the parent be it mother or father who has taken on the primary responsibility for that child's upbringing. Therefore, the judicial lens must widen beyond the binary of marital conflict and focus on creating a framework of dignity, continuity, and care for the child," Justice Joshi-Phalke observed.

In her detailed order, the judge held that merely because the wife is earning does not absolve the husband of his responsibility to maintain his minor children. The judge noted that the husband in the instant case was earning a monthly salary of Rs 1.50 lakhs while the wife, earned Rs 70,000.

"A child for upbringing does not only require money. A lot of time and effort goes in upbringing of the child. It would be incorrect to hold that both the parents are equally responsible for the expenses of the child. A mother who has custody of the child not only spends money on the upbringing of the child but also spent substantial time and effort in bringing up the child. One cannot put value to the time and effort put in by the mother in upbringing of the child. No doubt, mother, if she is earning, should also contribute towards the expenses of the child but the expenses cannot be divided equally between the two," the judge held.

The very purpose of Section 125 Cr.P.C. is to protect the children from want of roof, food, clothing and necessities of life. Education is an important aspect in children's life and amounts need to be spent for it, the judge said, adding that every father is under obligation to provide a good education to his children.

"No father is expected to produce a criminal or a disorderly person. Thus, he is under obligation to bear the educational expenses of his children. Even a man on the pavement will be dreaming of his children becoming a qualified person in life. Therefore, the obligation of a father to maintain, to meet the educational expenses of his children cannot be excluded for the component of maintenance. Section 125 CrPC. is not only for food for life, it should also be for food for thought. Otherwise, as far as the children are concerned, it would be violence to the very object of of Section 125 CrPC," Justice Joshi-Phalke observed.

The law of maintenance, while being applied by Court of law, cannot be treated as a mere contest between the two parties as to who earns less on paper, but requires an overall and holistic assessment as to who is bearing the real burden of upbringing the child and looking after the needs of the growing children as compared to one who is prima facie and evidently avoiding his responsibilities by misleading the Court, the judge said.

The judge further explained that every child has innumerable daily needs many of which are intangible, small, and incapable of precise articulation in a petition which may be filed before a court of law, which could range from school-related requirements, minor medical needs, hobbies, social activities, to something as ordinary yet important as going on a picnic with friends. The court made it clear that such needs are essential for the holistic development of a child and cannot be ignored merely because they are not quantifiable or specifically listed.

"Thus, maintenance cannot be determined by applying rigid arithmetic standards. One cannot determine maintenance by applying any arithmetical formula. There is no fixed percentage or rigid calculation that can universally apply to all cases. Every family is different, each situation is unique, and practical realities must guide the exercise of the Court's discretion. What may be adequate in one case may be wholly insufficient in another. It is, therefore, important for the Court to adopt a contextual, case-specific approach while keeping the best interests of the child at the core," the judge explained.

In the instant case, the judge noted that the child before her, was 14 years in age and held that he has every right to lead the life as per the status of his parents, who are medical professionals. The judge noted that there was no person dependant on the father except the child, who was living with his mother.

"Therefore, I am of the considered opinion that the Family Court has not taken into account the financial capacity of the father and also not taken into account the child is growing his educational expenses would rise day-by-day, he is in requirement of more attention. The expenses are required to be incurred to fulfill his aspirations as well as towards his hobbies, medical treatment etc. In such circumstances, it would be just and equitable that the financial responsibility towards the upbringing of the minor child is to be shared more by the father of the child," the judge held.

With these observations, the bench enhanced the monthly maintenance from Rs 15,000 to Rs 30,000 and disposed of the child's plea.

Appearance:

Advocate Anant Neware appeared for the Applicant Child.

Advocate Amol Jaltare represented the Father.

Case Title: Mast MPB vs Dr PMB (Criminal Revision Application 147 of 2023)

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 194

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment