Section 125 CrPC — Interim Maintenance, Child and Employed W · 23 July 2026
V v. J: Madhya Pradesh High Court Holds a Father's Duty to Maintain His Child Continues Though the Mother Is Employed, While Upholding Denial of Interim Maintenance to the Mother
High Court of Madhya Pradesh (Gwalior Bench) · 2026 LiveLaw (MP) 291; 2026:MPHC-GWL:21520; CRR-3577-2024
Download the full judgment (PDF)
Enter your name and WhatsApp number to get the download link. We'll also let you know on WhatsApp if we can help with this case — filing, tracking, or anything else — no obligation either way.
We use this only to send the link and to follow up about this case. See our privacy policy.
The couple married in 2010 and have a daughter. The mother sought maintenance under Section 125 CrPC, alleging harassment over a dowry demand and that she had to leave the matrimonial home in October 2019. The Family Court found she was a government employee, a compounder in the Ayurvedic Department, drawing ₹39,368 a month, and refused her interim maintenance, but granted the daughter ₹6,000. The father, a retired army man living on his pension and spending ₹16,000 a month on his aged parents, argued the ₹6,000 was excessive and the mother could bear the child's expenses. The mother argued the amount for the daughter was too low and that being employed did not disentitle her.
Justice Pushpendra Yadav held that a father's responsibility to maintain his minor child is not extinguished because the mother is employed and the child lives with her, her income being relevant only to the quantum. Noting that interim maintenance rests on a prima facie view, he agreed with the Family Court that the mother's income was relevant and that, being employed and earning enough to maintain herself, she was not entitled to interim maintenance at this stage. Both revisions were dismissed without perversity found, the observations were confined to the interim stage, and the Family Court was directed to decide the main application within six months.
General information, not legal advice. This is a plain-language summary for awareness only. Every case turns on its own facts, and this judgment does not decide how a court will rule in your matter. For advice on your own case, speak to an independent advocate — MyCaseFile is not a law firm and does not interpret judgments for anyone's case.