Father tells Supreme Court retrospective Rs 50,000 child maintenance cannot be based on current income; SC issues notice

The Supreme Court on September 30 issued notice on the father’s plea against the July 23, 2026 judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, which enhanced the maintenance payable towards the child to Rs 50,000 per month and directed that the enhanced amount be payable retrospectively from February 4, 2016.

A Bench of Justices KV Viswanathan and Arun Palli also recorded the submission of Advocate Sumit Gehlot that, if the Rs 20,000 per month payable to the son is taken into account, there are no arrears. The matter has been made returnable on October 30, 2026.

The father’s challenge, represented by Advocate Sumit Gehlot, centres on the manner in which his income was assessed for fixing the retrospective maintenance liability. He has contended that his financial position and earnings changed substantially over the years and that a later assessment of his earning capacity could not have been mechanically applied to the entire period beginning in 2016.

According to the SLP, the High Court assessed his earning capacity at Rs 2.25 lakh per month, while the father relied upon an income affidavit showing a net monthly income of Rs 94,175. He has further contended that his salary established on record was Rs 15.25 lakh per annum and that there was no corresponding year-wise documentary material to justify applying the higher figure throughout the retrospective period.

The plea argues that maintenance for different periods should bear a reasonable relationship with the actual income and financial circumstances prevailing during those periods. Gehlot has specifically questioned the retrospective imposition of Rs 50,000 per month when the assessment of the father’s earning capacity was made at a much later stage.

The father has raised the issue in the context of the Supreme Court’s judgment in Rajnesh v. Neha, questioning whether maintenance payable from the date of filing of an application can be retrospectively calculated on the basis of the paying parent’s income or earning capacity assessed years after the application was filed.
The SLP also highlights the father’s existing financial obligations. According to the plea, the Rs 50,000 monthly amount directed towards the child was in addition to Rs 20,000 per month which he says he was already liable to pay to his estranged wife under proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act.

The father has claimed that his disclosed net monthly income was Rs 94,175 and that the combined liability of Rs 70,000 per month would consequently account for about 74.3 per cent of his disclosed net income.

He has also claimed that he has already paid approximately Rs 50 lakh towards the child since 2016, apart from paying the child’s school fees at St Xavier’s School. The SLPs refers to income-tax returns, Form 16 documents, payment calculations and school-fee receipts in support of the claim.

The plea further states that the father’s financial circumstances were not static during the decade-long period. It refers, among other circumstances, to his employment termination in 2018 and medical expenses.

The father has also challenged the High Court’s reassessment of his income in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction, contending that the enhancement was made without sufficient evidence establishing his alleged income for the relevant periods.

The dispute originated from the Family Court’s May 25, 2023 order, under which the father was directed to pay Rs 20,000 per month to the minor child besides educational expenses. Both sides subsequently approached the High Court challenging different aspects of the Family Court order.

The father has also referred to the parties’ divorce decree dated June 1, 2020 and relied upon findings recorded in the decree concerning the matrimonial dispute. These are assertions made in the SLPs and form part of the father’s grounds before the Supreme Court.

In his plea, the father has sought reconsideration of both the quantum of maintenance and the date from which the enhanced amount is payable. He has sought that the enhanced amount be set aside or reduced and, alternatively, that any enhancement operates prospectively rather than retrospectively from the date of filing of the original maintenance application.

He has also sought adjustment of amounts that he claims to have already paid towards the child.

The Supreme Court’s September 30 order has issued notice and passed directions concerning the litigation-expense deposit, with the matter listed for further consideration on October 30.

Advocate Sumit Gehlot appeared for the father and made the submission regarding the Rs 20,000 monthly payment and absence of arrears, which was recorded by the Court. Advocate-on-Record Mukesh Kumar also appeared for the father.

Sumit Gehlot was assisted by Advocates Manju Gehlot, Tervender Thakran, Meenakshi Sood and Sunny Chaudhary.