Delhi High Court: Divorced Earning Wife Not Liable for Child’s Maintenance; Father to Bear Full Cost

On May 13, 2025, the Delhi High Court dismissed a husband's request to make his ex-wife equally responsible (50:50) for the financial upkeep and education of their two minor children. The Court held that financial responsibility for children depends not on gender, but on custody. Since the wife has custody, she bears the primary non-financial burden, and that cannot be assessed through a purely monetary lens.

The husband had argued that his income barely covers his own needs and that the maintenance order of Rs- 50,000 per month for the children was a significant strain. While the wife had also sought maintenance for herself, the lower court denied that request but upheld the order directing the husband to pay maintenance for the children.

The High Court acknowledged that the wife, employed as a stenographer in a district court, balances demanding work hours with her full-time parenting duties. It emphasized that such efforts, especially when performed alone, carry psychological and emotional weight that goes beyond financial calculations. Quoting its own observation, the Court stated that these burdens “cannot be addressed through a mere mathematical formula.”

The Court also clarified that maintenance is not a form of charity or punishment. Instead, it reflects the child’s right to support and the parents’ shared responsibility. Citing Supreme Court precedents, it reiterated that unless the mother earns sufficiently, the father should typically bear the educational and living expenses of the children.

In this case, although the wife earns a moderate salary (Rs- 75,000–Rs- 80,000 monthly), the husband’s income is significantly higher (Rs- 1.75 lakh per month). Considering the disparity in income and the wife’s continued role as the children's primary caregiver, the Court found it reasonable for the father to contribute more.

The judgment also stressed that continuity in the children’s schooling and standard of living must be preserved, and acknowledged the mother’s unpaid caregiving role. Consequently, the High Court upheld the lower court’s decision and refused to impose an equal financial burden on the mother.