The Madhya Pradesh High Court has reaffirmed that a father's legal duty to maintain his minor child does not end merely because the child's mother is employed. Dismissing revision petitions filed by both the husband and the wife, the Court upheld the Family Court's order granting interim maintenance of ₹6,000 per month to the couple's minor daughter while refusing interim maintenance to the wife, who is a government employee.
Background of the Case
The matter arose from two criminal revision petitions challenging a common order passed by the Family Court, Gwalior, on April 19, 2024. The husband questioned the grant of ₹6,000 per month as interim maintenance to the minor daughter, while the wife and daughter sought enhancement of the amount and also challenged the refusal to grant interim maintenance to the wife.
According to the record, the parties married in June 2010 and have a daughter born in November 2012. The wife later initiated proceedings under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, alleging that she had been subjected to harassment and had been living separately since October 2019.
The Family Court found that the wife was employed as a government compounder with a monthly salary of ₹39,368 and, therefore, declined interim maintenance in her favour. However, it awarded ₹6,000 per month to the minor daughter.
Court's Observations
Justice Pushpendra Yadav observed that interim maintenance is only a temporary arrangement intended to ensure that an applicant is not left without financial support while the main case is pending. The Court emphasized that, at this stage, only a prima facie assessment is required and a revisional court should not re-evaluate disputed facts unless the lower court's order is clearly arbitrary or illegal.
Addressing the husband's challenge, the bench observed,
"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 Court further noted that while the mother's income is a relevant factor in deciding the amount of maintenance, it does not extinguish the father's responsibility toward the child.
The High Court also rejected the wife's contention that the Family Court had denied maintenance solely because she was employed. It found that the lower court had considered both parties' incomes, expenses and financial obligations before reaching its prima facie conclusion. Questions regarding the parties' financial capacity and other disputed facts, the Court said, must be examined during the final hearing after evidence is recorded.
Decision
Finding no illegality or perversity in the Family Court's order, the High Court dismissed both revision petitions. It clarified that the observations made in the present order are limited to the interim stage and will not affect the final adjudication of the maintenance proceedings.
The Court also directed the Family Court to decide the main case within six months, considering that the matter has been pending since 2019.
Case Details
Case Title: X and Y
Case Number: Criminal Revision No. 3577 of 2024 with Criminal Revision No. 4239 of 2024
Judge: Hon'ble Shri Justice Pushpendra Yadav
Decision Date: 14 July 2026
