The Allahabad High Court held that an able-bodied husband cannot evade his duty to maintain his wife and child and is required to earn even through physical labour. The Court enhanced the maintenance amount, terming the earlier award inadequate in view of prevailing living costs.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
UTTAR PRADESH: The Allahabad High Court has held that an able-bodied husband working as a skilled labourer is presumed to earn at least ₹800 per day, amounting to a monthly income of ₹24,000, and that 25% of such income should ordinarily be considered for determining maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
Accordingly, the Court enhanced the maintenance awarded to a wife and her minor daughter, observing that the amount fixed by the Family Court was “too meagre” in view of prevailing inflation and cost of living.
The judgment was delivered by Justice Madan Pal Singh while partly allowing a criminal revision petition filed by the wife and daughter.
The revision was filed against an ex parte order dated 22 May 2024, passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Mathura, which had directed the husband to pay ₹4,000 per month to the wife and ₹1,000 per month to the daughter.
The wife and daughter contended that the husband runs an auto workshop and spare parts shop and earns more than ₹50,000 per month. Photographs of the workshop were placed on record. The State opposed the plea, arguing that the husband’s income was not permanent and that no documentary proof of income had been produced.
The High Court observed that no documentary evidence had been placed on record to establish the exact income of the husband and that mere photographs of the auto workshop were insufficient to determine his precise monthly earnings.
However, the Court noted that it was an admitted position that the husband is an able-bodied person and is engaged as a skilled labourer running an auto workshop.
Relying on the Supreme Court’s landmark judgment in Rajnesh v. Neha (2021) 2 SCC 324, the Court reiterated:
“It is the sacrosanct duty of the husband to provide financial support to the wife, and an able-bodied husband cannot avoid his obligation and is required to earn even by physical labour.”
Assessing the income, the Court observed:
“If the opposite party, who is an able-bodied person, is treated as a skilled labourer, he would earn ₹800 per day and his monthly income would be ₹24,000.”
The Court relied on the Supreme Court decisions in Rajnesh v. Neha and Kulbhushan Kumar (Dr.) v. Raj Kumari, which laid down that maintenance may be awarded up to 25% of the husband’s net income and must be reasonable and realistic, neither excessive nor so inadequate as to leave the wife in financial hardship.
Applying this principle, the Court held:
- 25% of ₹24,000 comes to ₹6,000, and
- The earlier award of ₹5,000 was inadequate.
The High Court partly allowed the criminal revision and modified the Family Court’s order by maintaining the maintenance payable to the wife at ₹4,000 per month while enhancing the amount awarded to the minor daughter from ₹1,000 to ₹2,000 per month, thereby fixing the total monthly maintenance at ₹6,000, payable from the date of filing of the application under Section 125 CrPC.
Considering the financial capacity of the husband, the Court directed that:
- Arrears of maintenance shall be paid in 10 equal monthly installments.
- The first installment shall commence from 5 February 2026.
- Any excess amount already paid shall be adjusted.
The Court also clarified that the wife and daughter are at liberty to seek further enhancement under Section 127 CrPC if the financial condition of the husband changes in the future.
Case Title:
Smt. Sapna And Another Versus State of U.P. and Another
Criminal Revision No. 7216 of 2025
READ ORDER
Click Here to Read More Reports on Maintenance
