The wife said her husband earns Rs 4 lakh a month; he relied on a salary record of Rs 50,000. The Allahabad High Court left a Family Court award of Rs 15,000 a month where it was, holding that Section 125 CrPC maintenance is a measure of social justice and not a bonanza.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
Prayagraj: A Family Court in Jaunpur had awarded a wife Rs 15,000 a month under Section 125 CrPC. The Allahabad High Court has now refused both to reduce and to raise that sum, holding that the wife failed to prove that her husband earns Rs 4 lakh a month and that the provision is not meant to confer an unmerited financial advantage [Ankit Singh v. State of U.P. and Another].
Justice Lakshmi Kant Shukla, sitting as a Single Judge, decided together Criminal Revision No. 542 of 2025, filed by the husband, and the connected Criminal Revision No. 6290 of 2024, filed by the wife, against the Family Court order of November 4, 2024. Both revisions were dismissed.
Social justice, not a windfall
On the quantum, the Court turned to the Supreme Court’s decision in Kalyan Dey Chowdhury v. Rita Dey Chowdhury Nee Nandy, which treats about 25 per cent of the husband’s net income as a reasonable benchmark. The Court stressed that the benchmark is not a fixed formula.
only a guiding factor and not an inflexible rule
Even if the husband’s income were taken at Rs 50,000 a month, the award of Rs 15,000 was well above 25 per cent, so there was no basis to enhance it. Section 125 CrPC, the Court said, is a measure of social justice that aims to prevent destitution and provide reasonable and dignified support, and maintenance must not become a bonanza or windfall. It is to be fixed by weighing the claimant’s needs, the payer’s income and capacity, the standard of living of the parties and other relevant circumstances.
Two versions of the husband’s income
The Family Court granted the wife Rs 15,000 a month from the date of her application, and the husband sought to have the order set aside. The wife sought enhancement, contending that the Family Court wrongly took his income as Rs 50,000 a month. In her telling he is a B.Tech graduate and the co-founder and CEO of a private technology company, earning about Rs 4 lakh a month from it. She relied on material showing that he and another person have been directors of the company since July 14, 2016, with authorised share capital of Rs 50 lakh and paid-up share capital of Rs 20 lakh.
The husband relied on a salary record showing Rs 50,000 a month. He also argued that the wife is educated, holds a B.Ed. degree and has worked as a teacher at a private school, and so can maintain herself, pointing to her salary slips for August to October 2021, which showed Rs 45,000 a month. The wife replied that the slips covered only a few months in 2021, did not show her income when she approached the Family Court in 2022, and that she was no longer teaching at the relevant time and lives at her parents’ home in Jaunpur. These are the contentions of the parties as recorded in the order.
Share capital proves little
The Court held that the share capital figures alone could not carry the wife’s case. Without cogent and reliable material, her assertion of a Rs 4 lakh monthly income could not be accepted, and nothing about the company’s earnings could be presumed from its authorised and paid-up share capital.
no presumption can be drawn that the company was generating sufficient income
As for the wife’s own earnings, her 2021 salary slips did not establish that she had a continuing income when she filed her petition in 2022.
The outcome
Finding no reason to interfere with the Family Court order of November 4, 2024, the Court dismissed the husband’s plea to set it aside and the wife’s plea for enhancement.
Why the order matters
The order shows how far a claim of high income must be backed by evidence at the revisional stage. A company’s share capital, without proof of what it earns or pays the person concerned, will not support a finding on a spouse’s monthly income, and a Family Court’s assessment will not be disturbed on that footing.
It also reads the 25 per cent benchmark as a guide and not a rule. The balance the Court describes, between the claimant’s needs and the payer’s capacity, cuts both ways: it protects a spouse against destitution without allowing maintenance to become a means of financial gain, and it leaves an award that already exceeds the benchmark where it stands.
Case Title: Ankit Singh v. State of U.P. and Another [Criminal Revision No. 542 of 2025, with connected Criminal Revision No. 6290 of 2024]
Bench: Justice Lakshmi Kant Shukla, Allahabad High Court
Date of Order: September 22, 2026