Directing that 25% of Husband’s Gross Salary As Maintenance be deducted at source and paid to his wife, the Allahabad High Court has said a husband owes his wife and minor children not only a legal but a pious obligation, drawing on Supreme Court rulings and a verse of the Manusmriti.
Prayagraj: A Kanpur Nagar family court’s award of Rs 19,000 a month has been modified by the Allahabad High Court, which has instead directed his employer, Indian Bank, to deduct 25% of the husband’s gross salary, after excluding income tax, and credit it to the wife’s verified bank account as maintenance for her and their minor daughter [Pinki Verma And Another v. State of U.P. and Another].
Justice Praveen Kumar Giri disposed of Criminal Revision No. 1465 of 2026 by an order dated October 22, 2026, marked as approved for reporting.
The obligation, in the Court’s words
Justice Giri observed:
“This Court observes that not only legal but a pious obligation is upon the husband to maintain his chaste wife, minor children and parents, if they are financially unable to maintain themselves.”
The same principle, the Court said, appears in paragraph 10 of the Supreme Court’s judgment in Anju Garg v. Deepak Kumar Garg (2022), which described Section 125 CrPC as a measure of social justice for women and children falling within Articles 15(3) and 39 of the Constitution; in Section 125 CrPC itself (now Section 144 of the BNSS); and in Chapter XI, Verse 10 of the Manusmriti. The order reproduces the Sanskrit verse with the Court’s own English translation:
“Aged parents, a virtuous wife, and an infant son must be maintained (supported), even by performing a hundred misdeeds (improper actions)- so said Manu.”
The challenge to the Rs 19,000 award
The wife and her minor daughter had challenged the judgment of the Principal Judge, Family Court, Kanpur Nagar dated December 22, 2025, in Case No. 149 of 2021 under Section 125 CrPC (Smt. Pinky Verma v. Saurabh @ Brij). Their grievance was that it awarded Rs 19,000 a month, not the Rs 40,000 they had claimed. The husband works as a Window Operator with Indian Bank in Unnao district.
ALSO READ: Voluntary Deductions Like PF, ESPP Can’t Cut Income For Maintenance: Supreme Court
What each side told the Court
Counsel Diwas Verma, for the revisionists, said the award was out of step with Dr. Kulbhushan Kumar v. Raj Kumari (1970) and Kalyan Dey Chowdhury v. Rita Dey Chowdhury Nee Nandy (2017), where the Supreme Court treated 25% of the husband’s net salary as just and proper maintenance. Relying on Deepa Joshi v. Gaurav Joshi (2026), he submitted that voluntary commitments such as loan repayments cannot dilute the husband’s primary duty, so the base should be the gross salary minus only income tax. He asked the Court to direct the bank to deduct 25% at source and pay it into the wife’s account.
Counsel Bhole Ram, for the husband, told the Court there was no chance of the wife and minor daughter living with him, and that he was ready for 25% of his salary to be deducted towards their maintenance. Pankaj Kumar, AGA, appeared for the State.
What the High Court directed
The High Court modified the family court’s order and directed the Principal Judge, Family Court, Kanpur Nagar to pass an order requiring the higher authority of Indian Bank, Unnao district, to deduct 25% of the husband’s gross salary, after excluding the income tax deduction, from his salary account and credit it to the wife’s verified bank account. The revision was disposed of with these directions.
Why the order matters
The order applies the long-standing 25% benchmark from Kulbhushan Kumar and Kalyan Dey Chowdhury, but fixes the base as gross salary less income tax, in line with the recent Supreme Court view in Deepa Joshi that voluntary deductions such as loan repayments cannot shrink the income on which maintenance is calculated. Directing the employer to deduct the amount at source removes the usual difficulty of enforcing monthly payments.
The reference to the Manusmriti sits alongside, not in place of, the statutory and constitutional basis of maintenance. The operative direction rests on Section 125 CrPC, the Supreme Court precedents and the husband’s own consent to the 25% deduction.
Case Title: Pinki Verma And Another v. State of U.P. and Another [Criminal Revision No. 1465 of 2026]
Bench: Justice Praveen Kumar Giri, Allahabad High Court
Date of Order: October 22, 2026
Appearances: Diwas Verma for the revisionists; Bhole Ram for opposite party No. 2; Pankaj Kumar, AGA, for the State