Supreme Court: Mother’s Income Does Not Automatically Halve Father’s Child Maintenance A significant observation by the Supreme Court of India in Sujata Kumari & Ors. v. Rahul Kumar & Anr., 2026 INSC 896. The mother was a qualified gynaecologist earning ₹1.5 lakh per month, while the father stated that he earned ₹2 lakh per month. The High Court reduced interim maintenance for the two daughters from ₹30,000 each to ₹15,000 each, reasoning that the responsibility of maintaining the children could not rest solely upon the father. The Supreme Court restored the Family Court’s order of ₹30,000 per month for each daughter. The Court held that the fact that the mother earns is not, by itself, a reason to halve the father’s liability. An important observation was that the obligation to maintain children is shared by both parents, but “cannot be divided by arithmetic alone.” The Court also recognised that the parent who looks after the children’s daily needs and upbringing makes a real contribution, even though such care cannot simply be measured in money. Key takeaway: Child maintenance is not determined merely by asking whether the mother is earning. The needs of the children and the circumstances and contributions of both parents remain relevant. #SupremeCourt #FamilyLaw #ChildMaintenance #Maintenance #MatrimonialLaw #LegalUpdate #IndianLaw

 Calcutta High Court on Impleadment of Third Parties in Specific Performance Suits

A recent judgment of the Calcutta High Court provides a useful reiteration of the principles governing impleadment under Order I Rule 10(2) CPC in suits for specific performance.

In Panchanan Pal v. Shravan Kumar Agarwal & Another, the petitioner claimed an independent title over the property and sought to be impleaded in a pending suit for specific performance concerning the same property.

The Court declined the request.

The important consideration was that the petitioner’s claim was founded on an independent title, while the pending suit was concerned with enforcement of an agreement for sale between its contracting parties.

The Court observed that allowing the third party to enter the proceedings would effectively change the nature and character of the suit into one concerning declaration of title.

The judgment also reiterates the importance of the dominus litis principle and the distinction between a necessary party and a proper party.

Key takeaway:
A person claiming an independent title over the property does not become a necessary or proper party merely because the property is the subject matter of a specific-performance suit. The Court must examine whether the proposed impleadment is necessary for adjudicating the controversy in the suit or would instead introduce a different cause of action.

Case: Panchanan Pal v. Shravan Kumar Agarwal & Another
C.O. No. 2013 of 2021
Calcutta High Court | 25 August 2026