The Allahabad High Court upheld a maintenance order directing a husband to pay his wife, ruling that a PM Awas Yojana house cannot replace maintenance rights. The Court said an able-bodied husband cannot avoid responsibility by claiming unemployment or low income under law.
The Allahabad High Court recently declined to interfere with a family court order directing a man to pay maintenance to his wife. The court held that a house allotted to the wife under the Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana cannot be treated as a means of livelihood for the purpose of denying maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) (aligned with Section 144 of the BNSS). Dismissing a criminal revision, the bench also reiterated that an able-bodied husband cannot avoid his legal duty to maintain his wife by claiming that he is unemployed or earns very little.
The revision was filed by Mannan @ Abdul Mannan against an order dated September 1, 2023 passed by the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bulandshahr. The family court had directed the husband to pay Rs 4,000 per month from the date the proceedings were instituted, and Rs 5,000 per month from the date of the order.
Before the High Court, the husband argued that he was an illiterate driver earning about Rs 5,000 per month and was currently unemployed. He further submitted that the wife earned by sewing and embroidery and had also been allotted a PM Awas Yojana house. According to him, the maintenance granted by the family court exceeded what he could afford.
The wife, on her part, pleaded before the family court that she and the husband were married on December 3, 2016 in accordance with Muslim rites and customs. She alleged that after marriage she faced cruelty and harassment linked to demands for additional dowry, which compelled her to leave the matrimonial home and reside with her parents. She further stated that even though the husband had sufficient means, he neglected and refused to maintain her, and she sought maintenance of Rs 20,000 per month.
The family court recorded that the marriage was legally established, that the wife was living separately for adequate reasons, and that there was no trustworthy evidence to show that she had an independent source of income sufficient to support herself. Based on these findings, it granted maintenance to her.
Observations of the High Court
Justice Garima Prashad noted that the husband’s claim about the wife’s earnings was not supported by evidence. The court observed:
“mere assertions in pleadings, unsupported by satisfactory evidence, cannot be accepted as proof of financial independence”.
The court also rejected the contention that allotment of a residential house under a welfare scheme could disentitle the wife from claiming maintenance, stating:
“allotment of a residential house under a welfare scheme cannot be treated as a source of livelihood disentitling a wife from claiming maintenance.”
The High Court held that PM Awas Yojana cannot deny maintenance under Section 125 CrPC.
On the question of the husband’s capacity to pay, the court relied on the family court’s assessment that the husband was a skilled driver and an able-bodied person capable of earning. The court held: “a husband cannot avoid his statutory obligation to maintain his wife merely by asserting that he is unemployed or earning a meagre income,” and further observed that earning capacity and the legal obligation to maintain are relevant considerations while deciding maintenance under Section 125 CrPC.
The court further explained that proceedings under Section 125 CrPC are intended to prevent destitution and vagrancy, and provide a quick and effective remedy to a wife who is unable to maintain herself. It described the provision as a form of social justice aimed at protecting women from neglect and abandonment. In support of this approach, it referred to Supreme Court decisions in Chaturbhuj v. Sita Bai (2008), Bhuwan Mohan Singh v. Meena (2015), and Shamima Farooqui v. Shahid Khan (2015), which recognise that a wife need not be completely destitute before claiming maintenance and that an able-bodied husband cannot evade responsibility by claiming inability.
Justice Prashad also found that the maintenance awarded by the family court could not be termed excessive. Considering the cost of living and the objective of Section 125 CrPC, the court held that the amounts fixed Rs 4,000 per month from the institution of proceedings and Rs 5,000 per month from the family court’s order were “modest and justified”.
The court further emphasised that revisional jurisdiction is limited, and the High Court does not function as an appellate court to re-evaluate evidence merely because another view is possible. Interference is justified only when the family court’s findings show manifest illegality, perversity, or material irregularity causing miscarriage of justice. Finding no such flaw, the High Court dismissed the husband’s revision petition and upheld the maintenance granted to the wife.
Case Title: Mannan @ Abdul Mannan v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE