The Gujarat High Court has reaffirmed that a father’s legal duty to maintain his minor children under Section 125 of the CrPC is paramount and cannot be diluted by financial obligations incurred for a second marriage. In a significant ruling, the Court set aside prior orders that had capped maintenance at Rs. 2,500 per child, directing instead that each child receive Rs. 3,000 per month from July 16, 2019, emphasizing that loan repayments for a second family cannot override the primary obligation to support legitimate dependents.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The dispute centers on the maintenance entitlement of three minor triplets, aged approximately nine at the time of litigation, born to Ajit Kalidas Vaghela (the father) and Daxaben D/o Bhimabhai (the mother). The children, all Scheduled Caste beneficiaries, have been under the sole care of their mother since separation. The father, who remarried in 2005, has a second child with his current wife. The mother, a primary school teacher, has shouldered all educational, medical, and living expenses for the triplets without financial support from the father beyond a minimal monthly order.
Key Facts
- The father was employed as a Water Bearer at the District Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, Anand, with a monthly salary of Rs. 14,600 as per notification dated 16.07.2019
- The mother’s monthly income was Rs. 88,368 as disclosed in her affidavit
- The children receive government scholarships totaling Rs. 1,850 per month, which were not withdrawn from their bank accounts
- The mother’s monthly expenses include: school fees of Rs. 9,000, rickshaw fare of Rs. 4,500, medical expenses of Rs. 1,500, housing EMI of Rs. 12,769, and vehicle loan EMI of Rs. 3,400
- The father claims monthly expenses of Rs. 10,000, including EMI of Rs. 2,140 for a Rs. 40,000 loan taken in his second wife’s name to mortgage jewelry for his father’s medical treatment
- The father’s dependents include his mother (pensioner), second wife, and a son from the second marriage
- The children are in 11th standard, with tuition fees of Rs. 20,000 per year for two of them
Procedural History
- 07.01.2016: Mother filed application under Section 125 CrPC for maintenance of three children
- 31.01.2017: 6th Additional JMFC, Nadiad ordered father to pay Rs. 1,800 per month per child, effective from date of application
- 30.04.2018: Mother filed application under Section 127 CrPC for enhancement of maintenance
- 30.04.2019: Family Court, Nadiad dismissed enhancement plea, citing mother’s higher income and children’s scholarship, and noted suppression of facts
- 2022: Criminal Revision Application No. 824 of 2022 filed by children through mother before Gujarat High Court challenging Family Court’s order
- 15.12.2023: High Court directed both parties to file affidavits under Rajnesh v. Neha (2021) 2 SCC 324
- 03.07.2024: High Court enhanced maintenance to Rs. 2,500 per child per month, relying on father’s disclosed income and scholarship
- 30.08.2024: High Court dismissed application to recall the 03.07.2024 order, stating father could approach Family Court
- 30.04.2025: Supreme Court remanded the matter, directing Gujarat High Court to restore and decide CR.MA (Recall) No. 15576 of 2024 afresh
- 05.05.2026: Final hearing conducted with full affidavits filed by both parties
The Parties' Positions
For the Applicant (Father): Argued that mother’s income exceeds his own, children’s scholarships cover essential needs, and his EMI obligations for his second family’s medical loan should reduce his maintenance liability. Cited Rajnesh v. Neha to argue that wife’s income must be factored in.
For the Respondents (Children through Mother): Contended that scholarships are not cash income, are not withdrawn, and do not offset daily expenses. Emphasized that father’s EMI is for a non-essential, self-induced obligation (second marriage), and that his duty to his first children is primary and non-negotiable.
Relief Sought
The children sought enhancement of maintenance from Rs. 1,800 to Rs. 3,000 per month per child, with retrospective effect from 16.07.2019 (date of father’s salary notification), and setting aside the Family Court’s 2019 order and the High Court’s 2024 order.
The Legal Issue
Can a father’s liability to maintain his minor children under Section 125 CrPC be reduced or discharged on account of financial commitments incurred for a second marriage, including loan EMIs, when the mother is earning substantially more and the children receive government scholarships?
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant/Petitioner
The father’s counsel argued that the mother’s income of Rs. 88,368 per month far exceeds his own, and that the children’s scholarships (Rs. 1,850/month) and her ability to support them negate the need for maintenance. He cited Rajnesh v. Neha to assert that the wife’s income must be considered in determining maintenance. He further contended that the Rs. 2,140 EMI paid toward a loan taken for his father’s medical treatment and recovery of mortgaged jewelry constitutes a necessary financial burden that should reduce his liability.
For the Respondent/State
The mother’s counsel argued that scholarships are not liquid income and are not used for daily sustenance, as evidenced by bank statements showing non-withdrawal. They emphasized that the father’s EMI is for a self-created obligation - a loan taken to support a second family - which cannot override his primary duty under Section 125 CrPC. Citing Deepa Joshi v. Gaurav Joshi (2026 SCC OnLine SC 597), they argued that asset-generating EMIs cannot be equated with essential living expenses. The father’s failure to disclose his second family’s financial dependence and the lack of cross-examination on documents implicating his second wife further undermined his credibility.
The Court's Analysis
The Court undertook a rigorous analysis of Section 125 CrPC, the principles laid down in Rajnesh v. Neha (2021) 2 SCC 324, and the recent precedent in Deepa Joshi v. Gaurav Joshi (2026 SCC OnLine SC 597). It held that while Rajnesh mandates disclosure of income by both parties, it does not permit the husband to evade his primary obligation to his children by shifting financial burdens to his second family.
"The obligation of the husband to maintain his children is a primary and continuing duty, which must be discharged in a manner that enables the children to live with dignity and in a standard commensurate with that enjoyed during the subsistence of the marriage."
The Court distinguished between necessary living expenses and financial commitments arising from voluntary choices. The father’s EMI of Rs. 2,140 was incurred to repay a loan taken for the benefit of his second wife and child - a choice made after the birth of the triplets. The Court noted that such obligations cannot be placed on the same footing as expenditures for food, clothing, education, and medical care of the children.
"Deductions arising out of financial commitments such as loan repayments, particularly where they contribute towards creation of assets, cannot be placed on the same footing as necessary expenditure so as to substantially reduce the liability of maintenance."
The Court rejected the father’s argument that the mother’s higher income absolves him of responsibility. It emphasized that the duty to maintain children is not a shared burden but a paternal obligation, and that the wife’s income may only be considered for proportionate sharing of excess educational or extracurricular costs - not basic sustenance.
The Court also found the father’s disclosure of dependents inconsistent: he listed his mother (a pensioner), second wife, and second child as dependents, but excluded the triplets from his financial planning. The Court calculated the father’s income of Rs. 14,600 across six dependents (including his mother, second wife, second child, and three triplets), yielding Rs. 2,433 per unit. Given the children’s actual expenses - tuition, medical, transport, and school fees - the Court concluded that Rs. 3,000 per child per month was a reasonable, proportionate, and just amount.
The Verdict
The applicant succeeded. The High Court set aside the Family Court’s order dated 30.04.2019 and its own order dated 03.07.2024. The father is directed to pay maintenance of Rs. 3,000 per month per child, effective from 16.07.2019. The amount already paid under the prior order of Rs. 1,800 per month shall be adjusted against this new liability. The father shall pay the arrears within 60 days of the judgment. Costs of Rs. 25,000 are awarded to the children’s counsel.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Maintenance Liability Is Not Offset by Second Family EMIs
- Practitioners must argue that EMIs for loans taken to support a second marriage or family cannot be invoked to reduce maintenance for children from a prior marriage
- Courts must distinguish between essential living expenses and voluntary financial commitments
- The burden of proving inability to pay rests squarely on the father, not on the mother to justify her income
Scholarships Do Not Discharge Maintenance Obligations
- Government scholarships are not equivalent to cash income and cannot be used to reduce maintenance unless proven to be withdrawn and utilized for daily needs
- Bank statements showing non-withdrawal of scholarship amounts will be decisive in rejecting arguments of financial sufficiency
- Maintenance must cover the full cost of education, including tuition, transport, and medical care - not just the net scholarship amount
Disclosure Under Rajnesh v. Neha Is Not a Shield for Evasion
- The Rajnesh requirement for affidavit disclosure is a tool for transparency, not a mechanism to deny maintenance
- Failure to cross-examine documents implicating a second spouse may lead to adverse inference
- Courts will not permit fathers to use their second family as a financial shield to evade primary obligations
