High Court cut girl's maintenance from ₹20,000 to ₹7,500. Supreme Court says: not so fast.

A 6-year-old girl was getting ₹20,000 a month for maintenance. Then the High Court slashed it to ₹7,500—with just a one-line reason. The father who challenged the original order never bothered to show up in the Supreme Court. And the judges who heard the appeal found themselves staring at an order that gave them almost nothing to work with.

Could a High Court reduce a child's maintenance by more than half without explaining why? The Supreme Court's answer arrived on a November morning in 2023—and it came with a broader message for every family court in the country.

The Court set aside the High Court's order. It sent the case back. But it also sent a warning: the guidelines meant to stop guesswork in maintenance cases are being ignored. That ends now.

When the family court said ₹20,000

Aditi—the court calls her by her alias, Mithi—was six or seven years old when her parents' marriage fell apart. Her mother and father had married in 2008. Two children came: a boy who stayed with the father, and Aditi who stayed with the mother.

The father filed for divorce in 2018. The Family Court at Guna, Madhya Pradesh, granted the divorce on September 10, 2022. Two months later, on November 30, 2022, the same court dealt with the question of maintenance under Section 125 of the CrPC (a provision that allows a wife, child, or parent to claim monthly financial support from a spouse or parent who refuses to maintain them).

The Family Court awarded Aditi ₹20,000 per month. It denied maintenance to the mother. That was the order: the child gets ₹20,000; the mother gets nothing.

The High Court's single-sheet cut

The father was not satisfied. He went to the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Gwalior in a criminal revision (a type of appeal where the High Court reviews the correctness of a lower court's order).

On June 28, 2023, the High Court passed its order. It reduced Aditi's maintenance from ₹20,000 to ₹7,500 per month. The order was brief—the kind that fits on a single sheet of paper, its text sparse, its reasoning absent. The High Court cited the father's "financial distress"—but gave no details. No analysis of his income. No discussion of the child's needs. No calculation. Just a number.

Aditi, through her mother, appealed to the Supreme Court.

The father who stayed silent

The Supreme Court issued notice to the father. The process server returned with a report: the father refused to accept the notice. He did not appear. The Court noted this in its judgment: the respondent "refused to accept the notice" and was "unserved." The courtroom fell silent as the mother's counsel argued before a bench that had before it only the High Court's thin order, the Family Court's thicker file, and the mother's argument that the reduction was arbitrary.

The bench—Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Rajesh Bindal—heard the matter without the father's participation. The mother's counsel pointed out that the High Court had not given any reasons for slashing the maintenance by more than half. The order was, in the Supreme Court's words, "cryptic and bereft of reasons."

What the Supreme Court saw

The Court examined the High Court's order. It found no discussion of the father's income, no assessment of the child's expenses, no reference to the Family Court's reasoning. The High Court had simply substituted one number for another.

The Supreme Court held that a revisional order reducing maintenance must be reasoned. A court cannot change a maintenance amount without explaining why the original figure was wrong and why the new figure is correct. The High Court's order failed that test. The Court declared: "The impugned order passed by the High Court is cryptic and bereft of reasons."

The Court set aside the High Court's order and sent the matter back for fresh consideration. The High Court was directed to issue notice to the father and hear the case again.

But the Supreme Court did not stop there.

The forgotten guidelines from Rajnesh v. Neha

In 2021, a three-judge bench of the Supreme Court in Rajnesh v. Neha (2021) 2 SCC 324 had issued detailed guidelines for maintenance proceedings. The guidelines required both parties to file Affidavits of Disclosure of Assets and Liabilities (a sworn statement listing all property, income, bank accounts, investments, and debts). The idea was simple: maintenance cannot be fixed properly unless the court knows what both sides actually have. The stack of affidavits that should have been filed in Aditi's case was absent—the High Court had not insisted on them, and neither had the Family Court.

The Supreme Court in Aditi's case noted that these guidelines were being ignored. The Court also cited two other precedents reinforcing the same principle: Neha Tyagi v. Lieutenant Colonel Deepak Tyagi (2022) 3 SCC 86 and Kaushalya v. Mukesh Jain (2020) 17 SCC 822. The result of ignoring these guidelines was a maintenance order based on guesswork.

The Court directed that the Rajnesh v. Neha guidelines be re-circulated to all judicial officers through the High Courts, the National Judicial Academy, and the State Judicial Academies. The Secretary General of the Supreme Court was specifically tasked with this re-circulation for training programmes. The message was clear: these guidelines are not optional.

THE PLAY: In every maintenance proceeding—whether under Section 125 CrPC or Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act—both parties must file Affidavits of Disclosure of Assets and Liabilities before the court fixes maintenance. Without them, any order is vulnerable to challenge.

What this means for every maintenance case

For practitioners, the judgment is a reminder of three things. First, a revisional order that reduces maintenance must contain reasons—real reasons, not a one-line reference to financial distress. Second, the Rajnesh v. Neha affidavits are mandatory, not a suggestion. Third, a party who refuses to accept notice from the Supreme Court cannot assume the case will go away.

For the litigant—the parent seeking maintenance for a child—the judgment offers a practical tool. If the other side's assets and income are not on record, the court must insist on the affidavit before fixing maintenance. The burden of proof under Section 106 of the Evidence Act (which says that facts especially within a person's knowledge must be proved by that person) shifts to the spouse who knows their own finances.

Aditi's case now goes back to the High Court. The father will have to appear. The affidavits will have to be filed. And this time, the order will have to explain itself.

A 6-year-old girl was getting ₹20,000 a month. The Supreme Court did not restore that figure. It simply said: if you change it, you must say why.

Aditi alias Mithi v. Jitesh Sharma, Criminal Appeal No. 3446 of 2023 (Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No.11954 of 2023), Citation: 2023 INSC 981, decided on November 6, 2023.