Delhi HC ruling: Father must pay ₹50,000 child support despite earning mom

If you don't have custody but earn more, you may be required to bear most (or all) of the financial burden.

An important Delhi High Court ruling on May 13, 2025 has clarified child maintenance responsibility following divorce. In a case where both parents earn, the father alone was held responsible for the full financial burden of maintaining and educating their two minor children, despite the mother being employed as well.

 

Case Overview & Key Decision

A divorced man had approached the court asking that his ex-wife—who earns ₹75,000–80,000 per month—should equally share the financial burden of raising their two children. He earns about ₹1.75 lakh monthly.

 

The family court had earlier directed him to pay ₹50,000 per month for the children’s maintenance. Disagreeing with this, he argued that since the mother also earns a decent income, she should contribute equally.

 

But the High Court dismissed his plea. The Court emphasized that the mother's non-monetary contributions—balancing a demanding job with full-time caregiving—cannot be quantified or offset through income alone. These efforts warrant recognition comparable to financial support. 

 

What did the Delhi HC ruling say? 

The court held that the entire financial responsibility for the maintenance of two children—despite the ex-wife being employed and earning ₹75,000–80,000 per month—must rest on the father, who earns approximately ₹1.75 lakh per month. It also rejected the idea of a 50:50 cost split solely based on income.

 

Core Legal Principles 

Child Welfare Comes First

Citing precedent, the Court reiterated that maintenance should cover not only basic needs but also education, co-curricular activities, and maintaining the child’s dignity.  The court said child maintenance is primarily the duty of the non-custodial parent, especially if that parent is financially stronger.

 

As advocate Saurav Agrawal explains, “The court's paramount focus is the child's welfare, ensuring a standard of living and dignity comparable to what they would have enjoyed with both parents. This extends beyond mere sustenance to include self-esteem, education, lifestyle, and opportunities.”

 

Value of Non-Financial Contributions

The Court extensively acknowledged the mother's dual roles; as a working professional and sole caregiver, she bears emotional and logistical burdens that justify shielding her from financial liability.The high court said she (wife) needs to do two jobs, one for the office and another after office for upkeep of the child and this contribution of hers cannot be quantified in monetary terms.  “These psychological and emotional burdens cannot be calculated ... through a mere mathematical formula,” the Court noted. 

 

Alay Razvi, Managing Partner at Accord Juris, stressed that this ruling firmly establishes:

 

“Child maintenance is not just about money; it’s about sustaining the child's emotional, educational, and social development. The court rejected mechanical 50:50 formulas and acknowledged caregiving as a real, measurable contribution.”

 

Custody Over Gender

The decision stressed that maintenance obligations are custody-based—not gender-based. Working mothers, especially those with custody, should not be treated as financially equivalent to non-custodial parents.

 

As per the court, in cases such as the present one, where the mother is both the primary caregiver and a working woman managing the entirety of the children‘s daily lives, her non-financial contributions must be duly acknowledged, and a mechanical 50:50 sharing of financial liability cannot be imposed.

 

Why the Father Was Made Solely Responsible

While the petitioner (father) argued that his ex-wife also earns and should contribute equally, the court took a broader view. It recognized that the custodial parent—often a mother—is not just providing housing or food but is also the primary caregiver, often managing this while holding down a job.

 

Ruchita Datta, Partner at D&T Juris, noted:

 

“This judgment is a shining example wherein the court has elucidated that it is not about the gender of the custodial parent, but about the welfare of the children. The mother in this case is fulfilling dual roles: a working professional and the sole day-to-day caregiver. These duties are relentless and deeply impactful.”

 

Court also said that maintenance should neither be considered as punishment to the non-custodial parent and nor must be considered as a charity to the custodial parent. "The maintenance provided by the non-custodial parent will definitely help in catering to the overall development of children viz, their tuition classes, sports activities, co-curricular/vocational studies etc. Also, the children must not run short of a holistic upbringing because their parents are separated and they no longer can sustain  the erstwhile secured financial environment as they had, previous to their parent’s separation," said Datta.

 

Adverse Inference for Hiding Income

Importantly, the judgment also cracked down on lack of financial transparency. The petitioner-husband failed to substantiate his grocery business income and provided vague declarations. The court drew an adverse inference—a move backed by legal precedent from Rajnesh v. Neha—and upheld the ₹1.75 lakh/month income estimate based on his lifestyle and expenditures.

 

 What Makes This Ruling Important?

• It acknowledges invisible labour done by custodial parents (usually mothers).
• It reinforces that childcare is not split by income but by caregiving responsibilities.
• It sets a clear benchmark: working mothers with custody are not automatically liable to pay maintenance, even if they earn.

 

 What Does the Law Say?

Under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, both parents are legally responsible for a child’s maintenance.

 

But in practice, courts assign financial responsibility to the non-custodial parent to reduce the burden on the one already raising the child daily.

 

Why Didn’t the Mother Have to Pay?

•  She had physical custody of the children.
•  She balanced a full-time job and parenting, alone.
•  Her income was less than half the father's.
•  The court saw her contributions as substantial and beyond financial value.

•  

Key precedents and significance, as explained by Razvi:

 

a) The court has acknowledged that working custodial parents, especially mothers , who are caregivers undertake dual responsibilities both professionally and also as caregivers.  These non-financial contributions (time, emotional support, supervision, etc.) are equally critical and must be factored when apportioning financial liabilities.

 

b) The Court rejected the mechanical equal sharing of maintenance costs. Court has opined that if the father earns more, he may shoulder a greater share of the financial responsibility.

 

c) Evidentiary burden on the non custodial parent. In this case, the court drew adverse inferences against the father for concealing true income and presenting vague and unsubstantiated claims. Court relied upon the legal position in Rajnesh Vs Neha wherein. In maintenance proceedings, if the husband fails to disclose his actual information, the court can assume higher earning capacity based on lifestyle and expenditure.

 

d) Maintenance should not be met on survival needs but also support school continuity and extracurricular development , emotional security and lifestyle parity.

 

e) The Court clarified that its reasoning was not gender-biased. If the father were the custodial parent, the same principles recognizing non-financial contributions and evaluating income holistically would apply.

 

Key Takeaways from the Ruling

Custodial care counts: If one parent is managing both a job and full-time parenting, their financial contribution cannot be judged in isolation.

 

Non-custodial parent bears more financial weight if they earn more and do not participate in daily caregiving.

 

Child maintenance is not a punishment or charity, but a legal obligation to uphold a child’s dignity and development.

 

No 50:50 rule in maintenance—courts will evaluate contributions holistically.

 

Transparency is non-negotiable—vague financial declarations will backfire.

 

What the ruling means for divorced parents: 

This judgment moves Indian family law forward by recognizing the multidimensional responsibilities of custodial parents—typically mothers—and ensuring that the child’s holistic development isn't compromised due to separation. It serves as a wake-up call for parents to prioritize their child’s emotional, educational, and lifestyle continuity above all else.