The Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that the father's responsibility to maintain his minor children is not extinguished merely because the mother is employed and the minor child resides with her. [2026 LiveLaw (MP) 292]

The bench of Justice Pushpendra Yadav upheld the order of the Family Court granting interim maintenance to the daughter while refusing interim maintenance to the mother/wife, after considering that she was employed in the Ayurvedic Department.

"the petitioner is a father and he has obligation to maintain his minor child irrespective of the fact that the mother is employed anywhere else. The responsibility of father does not distinguish automatically because the mother with whom the child resides is also earning some income".

The couple got married in 2010 and had a daughter out of wedlock. The mother had filed an application under Section 125 CrPC seeking maintenance and alleging that she was subjected to harassment on account of dowry demand. The mother claimed that she was compelled to leave her matrimonial home on October 29, 2019.

The Family Court observed that the mother was working as a government employee and drawing a monthly salary of ₹39,368 and therefore her petition for maintenance was denied. However, ₹6,000 was granted to the minor daughter for her daily necessities. Both the mother and father challenged the order of the Family Court.

In the present revisions, the counsel for the father argued that he is a retired army personnel relying solely on his pension and the maintenance awarded to the minor daughter was grossly excessive. He further father claimed that the mother was fully capable of bearing the minor child's expenses; therefore, the order directing the father to pay maintenance is totally unwarranted.

The counsel for the mother and minor daughter contended that the amount of ₹6,000 granted to the minor daughter is grossly insufficient to meet her basic requirements. Additionally, it was argued that the Family Court had erroneously denied maintenance to the mother merely because she was employed as a Compounder in the Ayurvedic Department.

The counsel for the mother also claimed that merely because the mother was employed, it did not disentitle her to claim maintenance from her father.

The bench noted that the purpose of interim maintenance was to ensure the applicant is not left without means of sustenance during delay of proceedings under Section 125 CrPC. Therefore, while passing such an order, the court is required to form only a prima facie opinion available at the stage.

The bench emphasized, "Any interference with an order of interim maintenance is called for only where the order is shown to be perverse, arbitrary or passed in violation of settled principles of law. Any Interference by this Court, at this stage, in setting aside or modifying the interim maintenance would effectively amount to a pre-determination of the issues that are required to be adjudicated by the Court below in the final proceedings".

In the present case, the bench noted that the Family Court had acted appropriately and considered the mother's income, which is employed in the Ayurvedic Department. The court also noted that the father is retired from the Army and survives only on pension and bears the expenditure of ₹16,000 towards his aged parents.

The court concurred with the Family Court's opinion that the mother's income was a relevant factor while deciding the amount of maintenance. The bench upheld the Family Court's order that since the mother is employed and earning sufficiently to maintain herself, and therefore is not entitled to interim maintenance at the stage.

The bench further rejected the contention that merely because the mother was employed and earning does not disentitle her from maintenance.

Thus, the bench held, "Therefore, based on said material on record and facts, the Court has formed a prima facie opinion on the comparative financial capacity of the parties. Whether this assessment requires correction, and whether the respondent's income and the wife's actual requirements are proportionate or not as claimed by either side need not be decided at the present stage; rather, said matters require detailed appreciation of evidence, which falls within the domain of the Trial Court at the stage of final adjudication".

The court noted that while conducting the final proceedings, the Family Court had ample opportunity to examine all aspects in detail, summon relevant documents, cross-examine witnesses, determine the actual income and conduct of the parties.

Thus, the bench found no perversity in the impugned order and dismissed the revisions.

Case Title: V v J, CRR-3577-2024

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (MP) 292

For Petitioner/father: Advocate GG Shivhare

For Respondents/mother and minor daughter: Advocate Hardayesh Kumar Shukla

Click here to read/download the Order