Can Child Maintenance Be Divided 50:50 If Wife Is Working? Supreme Court Says Not by Arithmetic Alone

Sujata Kumari & Ors. v. Rahul Kumar & Anr. | Supreme Court of India | 20 August 2026 | 2026 INSC 896 | Criminal Appeal No. 3970 of 2026

Can a husband argue that because his wife is working and earning almost as much as him, the expenses of the children should simply be divided 50:50?

The Supreme Court has now answered this important question.

In Sujata Kumari & Ors. v. Rahul Kumar & Anr., decided on 20 August 2026, the Supreme Court held that although the responsibility to maintain children is shared by both parents, child maintenance cannot be divided by a strict mathematical or arithmetic formula merely on the basis of the respective salaries of the father and mother.

The Court particularly recognised an aspect often overlooked in maintenance proceedings: when the children are residing with the mother, her daily care, supervision and contribution towards their upbringing is itself a substantial contribution which cannot always be measured in money.

This judgment is significant for both husbands and wives because it changes the way the argument of “equal contribution” should be approached in child-maintenance cases.

What Did the Supreme Court Hold?

The Supreme Court laid down a simple but important principle:

Both parents are responsible for maintaining their children, but their responsibility cannot be divided merely by comparing their salaries and applying an arithmetic formula.

The fact that the wife is earning does not automatically mean that the father’s liability towards the children must be reduced by half.

Where the children reside with the mother, the Court must also take into account the non-monetary contribution made by the mother in looking after their daily needs and upbringing.

Facts of Sujata Kumari v. Rahul Kumar

The parties were both doctors.

The wife was an MBBS, DGO qualified gynaecologist and stated that she was earning approximately ₹1,50,000 per month while working at a hospital in Greater Noida.

The husband was an MBBS, MD qualified paediatrician and disclosed an income of approximately ₹2,00,000 per month.

The couple had two minor daughters, approximately nine and eight years old, who were residing with their mother.

The wife and children had filed proceedings under Section 125 CrPC seeking maintenance.

The Family Court did not grant any interim maintenance to the wife because she herself was earning sufficiently.

However, it awarded:

₹30,000 per month to each daughter

Therefore, the husband’s total liability towards the two children was fixed at:

₹60,000 per month.

Allahabad High Court Reduced Maintenance by Half

The husband challenged the Family Court order before the Allahabad High Court.

The High Court accepted the argument that the responsibility for maintaining the children rested on both parents.

Since the mother herself was earning around ₹1.5 lakh per month, the High Court reduced the father’s contribution from:

₹30,000 per child to ₹15,000 per child.

Thus, the husband’s total liability came down from ₹60,000 to ₹30,000 per month.

The matter then reached the Supreme Court.

Can Working Parents Be Asked to Pay Child Expenses 50:50?

This was effectively the central issue before the Supreme Court.

The husband’s argument has considerable intuitive appeal.

If:

• the father is earning;
• the mother is also earning;
• both parents have a legal obligation to maintain their children; and
• the wife herself does not require maintenance,

why should the father alone bear the entire quantified expenditure of the children?

The Supreme Court did not reject the proposition that both parents have an obligation to maintain the children.

What it rejected was the assumption that this obligation can automatically be converted into a 50:50 financial division.

That distinction is extremely important.

Mother’s Salary Alone Is Not Enough to Halve Father’s Liability

The Supreme Court noticed that the High Court had not found the Family Court’s assessment of ₹60,000 for the two children to be excessive.

Nor had the High Court found the Family Court’s assessment to be perverse.

In fact, the High Court itself proceeded on the footing that ₹60,000 per month was sufficient considering the status of the parents.

The principal reason for reducing the father’s contribution was that the mother was also earning.

The Supreme Court found this reasoning insufficient.

The Court held that the wife’s earnings, by themselves, were not a reason to halve the father’s liability.

Child Maintenance Cannot Be Decided by Arithmetic Alone

This is the most important proposition from the judgment.

The obligation towards the children is certainly shared by both parents.

But that does not mean that if the total expenditure is ₹60,000, a court must necessarily order:

Mother: ₹30,000
Father: ₹30,000

Nor can the court automatically calculate the contribution according to the exact ratio of the parents’ respective salaries.

Why?

Because money is not the only contribution made towards raising a child.

Supreme Court Recognises Mother’s Non-Monetary Contribution

The two daughters were residing with their mother.

The mother was therefore not merely contributing financially.

She was also responsible for their daily life and upbringing while simultaneously pursuing her profession.

The Supreme Court recognised that such care cannot easily be converted into a monetary figure.

The resident parent may be responsible for matters such as:

• getting the children ready for school;
• supervising their education;
• attending to medical requirements;
• arranging extracurricular activities;
• managing their routines;
• providing emotional support;
• responding to emergencies; and
• making countless everyday decisions associated with raising children.

The Court therefore treated caregiving as a real contribution, even though it does not appear as a debit in a bank account.

This is perhaps the most significant aspect of the judgment.

Supreme Court Restores ₹60,000 Maintenance

The Supreme Court also looked at the financial position of the father.

The husband himself disclosed an income of approximately ₹2 lakh per month.

Considering that he was a qualified doctor and that the two daughters were school-going children aged approximately nine and eight, the Supreme Court found ₹60,000 per month for both children to be reasonable considering their education, upbringing and the status of the parties.

The Supreme Court consequently:

• set aside the Allahabad High Court order;
• restored ₹30,000 per month for each daughter;
• restored the father’s aggregate liability of ₹60,000 per month; and
• directed payment of arrears within three months.

Importantly, the Supreme Court clarified that this was an interim-maintenance order. The main Section 125 CrPC proceeding remains to be decided independently on its merits.

Does This Mean a Working Wife Has No Financial Responsibility Towards Children?

No.

This would be an incorrect reading of the judgment.

The Supreme Court expressly recognised that the obligation to maintain children is shared by both parents.

Therefore, the income of the mother remains a relevant circumstance.

What the judgment says is that her salary cannot be used mechanically to say:

Total expenses are ₹60,000. Both parents earn. Therefore, father will pay ₹30,000 and mother will pay ₹30,000.

The court has to examine the overall circumstances.

These include:

• actual needs of the children;
• income of both parents;
• financial resources of both parents;
• standard of living enjoyed by the family;
• educational expenses;
• age of the children;
• who has day-to-day custody;
• actual caregiving responsibilities; and
• other relevant financial and non-financial contributions.

Therefore, Sujata Kumari is not a judgment saying that only fathers must financially maintain children.

It is a judgment against mechanically converting shared parental responsibility into an arithmetic formula.

What Is the Best Argument for a Husband After This Judgment?

This is where the practical impact of Sujata Kumari becomes important.

After this judgment, simply arguing:

“My wife earns almost as much as me, therefore I should pay only 50% of the child expenses”

is unlikely to be a sufficient argument by itself.

A much stronger challenge is directed towards the actual quantum of expenditure claimed for the child.

For example, if ₹30,000, ₹50,000 or ₹1 lakh per month is being claimed for a child, the question should be:

How has this amount been calculated?

School fees can ordinarily be demonstrated.

Transport expenses can be demonstrated.

Coaching expenses can be demonstrated.

Medical expenses can often be demonstrated.

Extracurricular activities can be demonstrated.

Insurance premiums and other recurring payments can also usually be demonstrated.

The real contest in many maintenance cases should therefore be over the reasonableness and proof of the expenditure claimed, rather than merely demanding an arithmetic division based upon the parents’ respective salaries.

The Supreme Court itself noted that the Family Court had considered the income affidavits and expenses placed before it before fixing ₹30,000 for each child.

That observation is extremely important from the defence perspective.

Can Husband Challenge Inflated Child Expenses?

Yes.

Nothing in Sujata Kumari prevents a father from demonstrating that the expenses claimed for the child are exaggerated, duplicated, unsupported or inconsistent with the actual standard of living of the parties.

Suppose the wife claims ₹80,000 per month as expenses for one child.

The husband can still examine:

1. What is the actual school fee?
2. What are the annual school charges?
3. What is the actual transport expense?
4. Are coaching or extracurricular expenses actually being incurred?
5. Are medical expenses recurring or merely estimated?
6. Are expenses claimed individually for the child actually common household expenses?
7. Is the same expenditure being claimed under multiple heads?
8. Does the expenditure correspond with bank statements and documents?
9. What expenses is the father already paying directly?
10. Is the claimed lifestyle consistent with the lifestyle enjoyed during cohabitation?

Not every routine household expense will necessarily have a monthly invoice. Therefore, absence of a bill alone may not defeat a claim.

But where substantial expenditure is claimed, documentary evidence and financial records can become extremely important.

This is a much stronger litigation strategy after Sujata Kumari than merely seeking a 50:50 division.

Sujata Kumari v. Padmja Sharma: Has the Supreme Court Changed Its Earlier View?

This judgment becomes particularly interesting when compared with the Supreme Court’s earlier decision in Padmja Sharma v. Ratan Lal Sharma, (2000) 4 SCC 266, decided on 28 March 2000.

In Padmja Sharma, both parents were employed.

The Supreme Court observed that the husband’s approximate salary was twice that of the wife and held that both parents were bound to contribute towards the maintenance of their children.

The Court ultimately apportioned the children’s maintenance between the parents in the ratio of approximately 2:1, corresponding with their respective incomes.

At first sight, Padmja Sharma appears to support income-based apportionment.

Sujata Kumari, 26 years later, adds an important dimension.

The Supreme Court now expressly says that the obligation:

cannot be divided by arithmetic alone.

Has Padmja Sharma Been Overruled?

No.

This distinction is important.

The Supreme Court in Sujata Kumari did not expressly overrule or even disapprove Padmja Sharma.

Therefore, it would be legally unsafe to say that Padmja Sharma is no longer good law.

Instead, the better interpretation is that Sujata Kumari gives us a more nuanced approach to apportionment.

Income remains relevant.

The fact that both parents are earning remains relevant.

Shared responsibility remains the law.

But salary ratios are not conclusive.

The court must additionally recognise the value of caregiving and the factual circumstances in which one parent is actually raising the children.

Thus, after Sujata Kumari, Padmja Sharma should not be understood as laying down an inflexible rule requiring courts to divide every child’s expenditure according to the mathematical ratio of the parents’ salaries.

But What About the Father’s Non-Monetary Contribution?

There is another side to this issue which deserves discussion.

Many fathers argue that after separation they are denied an opportunity to participate meaningfully in the daily upbringing of their children.

They may receive visitation for a few hours, weekend access or, in some cases, overnight visitation.

They may therefore argue:

If non-monetary parenting is to be given economic recognition, what happens where a father is willing to share parenting responsibilities but does not have sufficient physical access to the child?

This is a legitimate policy question.

However, a maintenance proceeding is ordinarily not the appropriate proceeding for deciding comprehensive custody or shared-parenting arrangements.

Custody and access have to be pursued through appropriate proceedings under the Guardians and Wards Act, personal law or other applicable provisions.

A father cannot ordinarily answer a maintenance claim merely by saying that he should instead be given custody of the child.

The two questions are legally distinct.

The Problem of Visitation and Financial Expectations

There is nevertheless a practical issue which courts should not completely ignore.

A non-custodial parent may already be:

• paying maintenance;
• paying school expenses directly;
• buying clothes and other necessities;
• bearing travel costs;
• paying medical expenses; and
• spending separately during visitation.

These contributions should, where properly established, form part of the overall financial picture.

Similarly, courts should distinguish genuine expenditure on a child’s welfare from extravagant or unreasonable demands which are not commensurate with the family’s financial circumstances.

Child welfare should remain the focus. Maintenance should neither become a weapon between parents nor should financial disputes be allowed to diminish the child’s legitimate standard of living.

What Does Sujata Kumari Mean for Maintenance Cases?

The practical rule emerging from the judgment can be stated in five propositions.

First: Both parents have a responsibility to maintain their children.

Second: A mother’s independent income is relevant but does not automatically reduce the father’s liability by 50%.

Third: Child-maintenance liability cannot be determined by a rigid arithmetic formula based solely upon parental income.

Fourth: The court can recognise the non-monetary contribution of the parent who has day-to-day custody and is actually raising the children.

Fifth: A party disputing the amount should seriously challenge the actual needs and expenditure of the child, rather than relying only upon the income of the other parent.

Section 125 CrPC and Section 144 BNSS

Sujata Kumari arose from proceedings instituted under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

For proceedings governed by the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the corresponding maintenance provision is Section 144 BNSS.

The broader principle laid down by the Supreme Court regarding assessment of children’s maintenance and parental contribution will therefore be highly relevant to contemporary maintenance litigation as well.

Frequently Asked Questions

If the wife is working, can child maintenance be divided 50:50?

Not automatically. The Supreme Court has held that the obligation is shared by both parents but cannot be divided merely by arithmetic. The court must consider the circumstances of the children and the contributions of both parents.

Does an earning wife have to contribute towards child maintenance?

Yes. Both parents have an obligation towards their children. But contribution need not necessarily mean an equal cash payment because the court can also consider the daily caregiving performed by the custodial parent.

Can a husband seek reduction of child maintenance because his wife earns ₹1.5 lakh per month?

He can rely upon her income as a relevant circumstance, but her income alone may not justify reducing his liability. Sujata Kumari specifically rejects such a mechanical approach.

Can the husband challenge the expenses claimed by the wife?

Yes. This remains one of the most important grounds for contesting quantum. Actual educational, medical, transportation, extracurricular and other substantial expenses can be examined against documents and the parties’ financial status.

Did the Supreme Court say the father must always bear 100% of child expenses?

No. The Supreme Court expressly recognised that responsibility is shared by both parents. It rejected only the proposition that the father’s contribution should automatically be halved merely because the mother earns.

What maintenance was awarded in Sujata Kumari v. Rahul Kumar?

The Supreme Court restored interim maintenance of ₹30,000 per month for each of two minor daughters, totalling ₹60,000 per month payable by the father.

What is the citation of Sujata Kumari v. Rahul Kumar?

Sujata Kumari & Ors. v. Rahul Kumar & Anr., 2026 INSC 896, Criminal Appeal No. 3970 of 2026 arising out of SLP (Criminal) No. 9661 of 2026, decided on 20 August 2026 by Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta.

Conclusion

Sujata Kumari v. Rahul Kumar is an important development in child-maintenance jurisprudence.

The judgment does not relieve an earning mother of her responsibility towards her children. What it does is reject an oversimplified method of calculating maintenance solely by comparing salaries.

A parent raising children contributes not only money but also time, supervision, care and everyday responsibility.

At the same time, the judgment should not be understood as granting an unrestricted licence to claim any amount as child maintenance.

For husbands contesting excessive maintenance claims, the focus after Sujata Kumari should increasingly be on proof of actual expenditure, reasonableness of the child’s needs, direct expenses already being borne by the father, and the complete financial circumstances of both parents.

That is likely to be far more effective than a simple argument that because the wife earns, the maintenance must necessarily be divided 50:50.

Question for Readers

Do you agree with the Supreme Court that the custodial parent’s non-monetary contribution towards raising the child should be taken into account while fixing child maintenance?

Or should financially independent parents ordinarily be required to share the monetary expenses of their children according to their respective incomes?

Share your view in the comments.