A husband who is capable of earning cannot escape his duty to maintain his wife by pleading unemployment or a slow business, the Allahabad High Court has held, describing such pleas as “bald excuses” with no standing in law and upholding a Rs 3,500 monthly maintenance award.
Prayagraj: The Allahabad High Court has dismissed a husband’s criminal revision against an order of the Gram Nyayalaya at Patiyali in Kasganj district directing him to pay Rs 3,500 a month as maintenance to his wife under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, holding that the inability to find work or a business in decline is no answer to a maintenance claim so long as the husband is capable of earning [Mohammad Kamil v. State of U.P. and Another].
Justice Jai Krishna Upadhyay, in a judgment delivered on September 30, found that the award, payable from the date of the maintenance application, was “wholly justified” and that the order suffered from no illegality, perversity or jurisdictional error.
The challenge
The Nyayadhikari, Gram Nyayalaya, Patiyali had passed the maintenance order on January 25, 2023 in a case arising from Police Station Ganjdundwara. Before the High Court, counsel for the revisionist contended that the wife was living with her parents of her own accord, without any justification. It was further argued that the husband had no permanent source of income, could not afford what he described as a “huge” amount, and that the trial court had wrongly assessed his earnings. The revision also faulted the trial court for making the maintenance payable from the date of application without recording specific reasons.
The State, represented by the Additional Government Advocate, defended the order as just and legal and urged that the revision be dismissed.
ALSO READ: Unemployment Is No Escape, PM Awas House Cannot Replace Maintenance: Allahabad HC
Purpose of Section 125 CrPC
Setting out the object of the provision, the Court said it exists to relieve both the financial hardship and the mental distress of a woman forced out of her matrimonial home, and that the law requires an arrangement under which she can sustain herself. On the standard of living she is entitled to, the Court observed:
“A woman, who is constrained to leave the marital home, should not be allowed to feel that she has fallen from grace and move hither and thither arranging for sustenance. As per law, she is entitled to lead a life in the similar manner as she would have lived in the house of her husband.”
It added that the husband’s status and standing are what give shape to his legal obligation, that maintenance must be adequate for the wife to live with dignity, and that she “cannot be compelled to become a destitute or a beggar”.
‘Bald Excuses’ Cannot Defeat Maintenance
Turning to the husband’s plea of financial incapacity, the Court was unequivocal:
“Sometimes, a plea is advanced by the husband that he does not have the means to pay, for he does not have a job or his business is not doing well. These are only bald excuses and, in fact, they have no acceptability in law.”
On how the amount is to be fixed, the Court relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Jasbir Kaur Sehgal v. District Judge, Dehradun (1997), which requires courts to weigh the status of the parties, their needs and the husband’s capacity to pay after his reasonable expenses and legal obligations, so that the wife can live in reasonable comfort without the amount becoming excessive or extortionate. It also referred to Chaturbhuj v. Sita Bai (2008), where maintenance for a wife was described as a measure of social justice, and held that a husband capable of earning cannot plead financial constraints. In the Court’s words, “the obligation of the husband is on a higher pedestal when the question of maintenance of wife and children arises.”
The judgment also dwelt on what a woman leaving her marital home loses, noting that she is deprived of many comforts and may feel she has lost “the tenderest friend”. At that point, the Court said, the only comfort the law can offer is the husband’s monetary support:
“That is the only soothing legal balm, for she cannot be allowed to resign to destiny.”
Rs 3,500 a month is ‘meagre’, not excessive
Applying these principles, the Court noted that it was undisputed that the opposite party was the revisionist’s legally wedded wife. The trial court had recorded that she could not maintain herself and that the husband had turned her out over unmet dowry demands, and the material on record showed she was a homemaker with no independent income. It was therefore incumbent on the husband to support her financially.
On quantum, the High Court said the amount awarded was in fact a “very meager” one, and that had the wife been living with the revisionist, he would have had to spend at least as much on her. The award, it held, could not be called exorbitant, and making it payable from the date of the application was justified. Finding no scope for interference, the Court dismissed the revision, vacated any interim order and directed that a copy be sent to the trial court through the Sessions Judge within a fortnight.
Case Title: Mohammad Kamil v. State of U.P. and Another [Criminal Revision No. 1717 of 2023]
Bench: Justice Jai Krishna Upadhyay, Allahabad High Court
Date of Judgment: September 30, 2026
For the Revisionist: Vivek Kumar Singh, Advocate, holding brief for Yogesh Mishra
For the State: Additional Government Advocate