Maintenance Is Not A Favour, It's The Recognition Of Shared Parental Responsibility & Child's Right To Be Supported: Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court has ruled that maintenance m is not a favour but is a recognition of shared parental responsibility, and of the child's right to be supported.“It is both appropriate and necessary to recognize their (custodial parents) efforts with respect and without reductive labels, and try to measure their efforts as caregivers in monetary terms. To reiterate it is irrespective of...
The Delhi High Court has ruled that maintenance m is not a favour but is a recognition of shared parental responsibility, and of the child's right to be supported.
“It is both appropriate and necessary to recognize their (custodial parents) efforts with respect and without reductive labels, and try to measure their efforts as caregivers in monetary terms. To reiterate it is irrespective of the gender of the custodial parent,” Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma said.
The Court said that a custodial parent, though performing parental responsibilities independently, does not live a solitary existence; rather, he or she forms a familial unit with the children in their care.
“The presence of children, and the responsibilities that accompany their upbringing, confer upon such an individual the character of a family, not of a person leading a singular or isolated life,” it said.
Justice Sharma was dealing with a husband's plea against the trial court order upholding the direction that he shall pay interim maintenance of Rs.50,000 per month to the wife for two minor children.
The Court noted that there were some discrepancies in the claims of the husband, lack of supporting proof, and an indication of possible concealment of his true income.
“It is apparent from the records of the case that, prima facie, the petitioner-husband in this case had attempted to conceal his true income, by not placing on record the material documents (such as
those pertaining to his grocery store), making vague assertions without proof, and attempting to project an unrealistically low income to avoid his legal obligations,” it said.
The husband had contended that the maintenance aamount was excessive and that the wife, being employed as stenographer in district court, should be held equally liable to contribute 50% towards the expenses incurred on the upbringing of the children.
On this, the Court observed that maintenance is not meant to belittle the non-custodial parent, nor is it a measure of punishment. It added that the custodial parent should not be viewed as someone seeking charity or alms.
Justice Sharma said that even in cases where a father has custody of young and minor children, the challenges he faces are, in essence, not dissimilar to those encountered by a mother in a comparable situation.
“While societal perception may traditionally lean towards the belief that a father's role is rendered more arduous due to professional commitments and prevailing gender expectations, the same logic must equally apply to working mothers, who often navigate identical—if not heightened— burdens,” the Court said.
“This case is, in many ways, an acknowledgment – if not a tribute – to all working custodial parents, irrespective of gender, who strive each day to maintain equilibrium between their obligations as caregivers and professionals,” it added while dismissing the plea.
Title: SH. VINEET GUPTA v. SMT. BHAWNA GUPTA
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 608