The Allahabad High Court has observed that maintenance under Section 125 CrPC is “not charity but a right” and that courts must remain vigilant against attempts by husbands to conceal their actual income to defeat the lawful claims of wives and children.
Delivering a strong message to Family Courts across Uttar Pradesh, the Court said affidavits filed in compliance with the Supreme Court’s ruling in Rajnesh vs. Neha “is not a mere formality” and trial courts “must be alive to the objects and reasons as well as spirit behind law of maintenance.”
The Court further remarked that,
“Thus, maintenance jurisprudence in India stands as a testament to the judiciary’s resolve to ensure that no wife, child, or dependent parent is left to languish in penury due to the neglect of those legally bound to sustain them.”
The order was passed by Justice Dr. Ajay Kumar-II while deciding connected Criminal Revision Nos. 223 of 2024 and 51 of 2024 filed by wife and her husband Jitendra Singh Som against an order of the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bulandshahr.
Read also: https://practicinglawyer.in/allahabad-hc-sc-st-charge-order-not-appealable/
The wife had sought enhancement of maintenance, whereas the husband challenged the very grant of maintenance awarded in proceedings under Section 125 CrPC.
According to the case record, the wife alleged that soon after marriage, she was subjected to cruelty and harassment for additional dowry by her husband and in-laws. She claimed that despite substantial expenditure by her parents during the marriage, the husband’s family allegedly demanded Rs.10 lakh and a Swift car.
The wife further alleged that she was forced out of her matrimonial home during pregnancy and later gave birth to a son at her parental house on December 29, 2017.
Read also: https://practicinglawyer.in/allahabad-hc-protects-couple-despite-disputed-nikah/
In connection with these allegations, a criminal case was registered at Pahasu Police Station under Sections 498A, 323, and 504 IPC along with Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act against the husband and his parents.
The High Court noted that the pendency of the dowry harassment case itself constituted a reasonable ground for the wife to live separately from her husband.
The wife contended before the Court that her husband, employed as an engineer with Nokia Solutions and Network India Pvt. Ltd. in Noida, was earning nearly Rs. 1.95 lakh per month but had concealed his true income before the Family Court.
She sought enhancement of maintenance from Rs. 20,000 to Rs. 75,000 per month.
While the counsel for the husband argued that the wife was professionally qualified in fashion designing and capable of maintaining herself independently.
Rejecting this argument, the Court reiterated that mere educational qualification or earning capacity of a wife cannot by itself disentitle her from maintenance.
Referring to Supreme Court precedents including Manish Jain vs. Akanksha Jain, (2017) 15 SCC 801 and Shailja and another vs. Khobbanna (2018) 12 SCC 199, the Court observed that whether the wife is capable of earning or whether she is actually earning are two different requirements.
The Court came down heavily on the husband for allegedly suppressing material facts in his affidavit of assets and liabilities. It found that although he claimed his retired Army personnel father, mother and sister were dependent upon him, he deliberately omitted details regarding his father’s pension and other benefits.
The Court noted that the husband had also failed to file salary slips, bank statements, income tax returns and other mandatory disclosures required under the Supreme Court’s guidelines in Rajnesh vs. Neha.
Describing the Family Court’s approach as “very casual and lackadaisical,” the High Court said trial courts must carefully scrutinize affidavits filed in maintenance proceedings and should invoke legal provisions where concealment or false disclosure is detected.
The Court also emphasized that Family Courts deal with “extremely delicate and sensitive issues” concerning deserted women and children, and therefore should not conduct proceedings mechanically.
It observed that the object of maintenance law is to prevent “vagrancy and destitution” and to ensure dignity and social justice for women and children.
After reassessing the husband’s admitted income of Rs. 1.25 lakh per month, the Court enhanced the maintenance amount substantially.
The Court ruled that,
“…..Whatever be the dispute between the husband and the wife, a child should not be made to suffer. The liability and responsibility of the father to maintain the child continues till the child/son attains the age of majority. It also cannot be disputed that the son has a right to be maintained as per the status of his father. It is reported that the mother is not earning anything. She is residing at her parental house. Therefore, a reasonable/sufficient amount is required for the maintenance of her son including his education, etc….”
The Court directed the husband to pay Rs. 30,000 per month to the wife and Rs. 17,500 per month to the minor son from December 1, 2023 onward.
For the period from the filing of the maintenance application in 2019 till the Family Court’s judgment, the Court fixed maintenance at Rs. 20,000 per month for the wife and Rs. 14,000 per month for the child.
The Court further directed that arrears be cleared in six equal monthly installments beginning July 1, 2026.
Significantly, the High Court ordered circulation of its judgment among all judicial officers in Uttar Pradesh and also directed the Judicial Training and Research Institute to sensitize judges regarding strict compliance with the Supreme Court’s maintenance guidelines in Rajnesh vs. Neha.
Case: Wife vs State of U.P. and Another
Case No: Criminal Revision No. – 223 of 2024 c/w Criminal Revision No. – 51 of 2024
Date of Order: 15.05.2026
Status: Allowed
