Allahabad High Court refuses maintenance to wife earning Rs 73,000 per month and owning an Rs 80 lakh flat, citing her financial independence under Section 125 CrPC, while child maintenance is upheld.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
UTTAR PRADESH: In a judgment dated August 20, 2025, the Allahabad High Court ruled on a maintenance case under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), making a clear distinction between maintenance for a financially independent spouse and that for a minor child.
Case Background
The case involved a married couple, both working as software engineers. The husband, earning approximately Rs 1,75,000 per month, had been directed by the Family Court to pay Rs 15,000 per month to his wife and Rs 25,000 per month to their minor son. The wife, employed with Tata Consultancy Services (TCS), earned Rs 73,000 per month and had also invested in a flat in Lucknow worth Rs 80,43,409, booked in January 2023.
Dissatisfied with the family court’s order, the husband filed a revision plea challenging the maintenance directed to his wife.
High Court’s Analysis
Justice Saurabh Lavanai emphasized the wife’s financial independence. The court noted:
- The wife earned Rs 73,000 per month, sufficient to maintain her lifestyle.
- She had the financial capacity to purchase a flat worth over Rs 80 lakh, indicating stability and self-reliance.
- Her current income, coupled with existing assets, rendered maintenance from her husband unnecessary.
The Court referred to the Supreme Court judgment in Rajnesh v Neha, which clarifies that a wife’s income does not automatically bar her from claiming maintenance. Instead, the key consideration is whether her income is adequate to maintain herself in accordance with the lifestyle during the marriage.
ALSO READ: In-Laws Can’t Evict Widow from Matrimonial Home, Rules Kerala High Court
Highlights of the Judgment
Based on the assessment, the Allahabad High Court:
- Set aside the Family Court’s order directing the husband to pay Rs 15,000 per month to his wife.
- Upheld the Family Court’s order directing the husband to pay Rs 25,000 per month for the maintenance of their minor son.
Justice Lavanai remarked,
“Considering the undisputed facts, including the wife’s employment and income, the direction of the Family Court to grant her maintenance was an error. However, maintenance for the minor child is justified.”
Appearance:
For the husband: Advocate Tilak Raj Singh and Brijendra Singh
For the wife: Advocate Ram Kumar Singh and Vishwas Shukla
Click Here to Read More Reports on Maintenance
