The Allahabad High Court, while hearing a criminal revision petition in a matter relating to maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C., has clarified that merely because a wife is educated cannot be a ground to deny her maintenance.
The Court pointed out that,
“The Court is unable to accept the submission that mere employment or earning of the wife is, by itself, a ground to deny maintenance. The object of Section 125 Cr.P.C. is not merely to prevent destitution, but to ensure that the wife is able to live with dignity, consistent with the status of the husband.”
The order was passed by a Single Bench of Justice Madan Pal Singh while dismissing the revision petition filed by the husband/husband, Ravinder Singh Bisht.
The present petition had been filed against the order of the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Ghaziabad, by which the husband was directed to pay maintenance of Rs. 15,000 per month to the wife from the date of the application.
Counsel for the revisionist submitted that the order of the Family Court was unjustified and illegal, contending that the wife was an educated and working woman, financially independent, and therefore not entitled to maintenance.
It was further argued that as per her Income Tax Return filed on 30 May 2018, her annual salary was Rs. 11,28,780.
The revisionist contended that he was necessitated to resign from his employment to provide care for his ailing parents and is currently encumbered with financial obligations, rendering him incapable of fulfilling the maintenance amount stipulated by the court.
However, counsel for the wife submitted that the revisionist had not disclosed his true income and standard of living before the Trial Court. It was also pointed out that, in statements recorded before the Trial Court, the revisionist had admitted the fact that he was employed with J.P. Morgan from April 2018 to April 2020 and was drawing an annual package of approximately Rs. 40 lakhs.
After hearing both sides, the Court underlined that,
“Even assuming that opposite party no. 2 has some source of income, the material available on record clearly reflects a substantial disparity in the earning capacity and financial status of the parties. The income attributed to the wife, as reflected from the documents relied upon by the revisionist, cannot be said to be sufficient to enable her to maintain the same standard of living to which she was accustomed during her matrimonial life.”
The Court also placed reliance on the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Shailja v. Khobbanna (2018) 12 SCC 199 established that a wife’s mere earning does not automatically disqualify her from receiving maintenance, the determining factor is whether her income is adequate to sustain the standard of living she was accustomed to during her matrimonial life.
Rejecting the husband’s plea of financial hardship, the Court further held that,
“The contention of the revisionist regarding his alleged financial constraints and liabilities has remained a bald assertion.”
The Court noted that the husband had failed to place any strong evidence on record to demonstrate a decline in his earning capacity or financial inability.
The Court held that despite the wife having an independent source of income, the record clearly demonstrates a considerable difference in the financial earning capacity and financial status between the parties.
With these observations, the High Court clarified that the order of the Family Court was just, proper, and free from any illegality or material irregularity.
The Court ultimately observed that, “The income attributed to the wife, as reflected from the documents relied upon by the revisionist, cannot be said to be sufficient to enable her to maintain the same standard of living to which she was accustomed during her matrimonial life.”
Eventually, the criminal revision petition filed by the husband was dismissed.
Case: Ravinder Singh Bisht vs State of U.P. and Another
Date of Order: 05.02.2026
See the Order: Ravinder Singh Bisht vs State of U.P. and Another
