The Allahabad High Court ruled that a wife’s job or income alone cannot justify denying her maintenance. What truly matters, the Court stressed, is whether her earnings can maintain the standard of living she had in her matrimonial home.
The Allahabad High Court determined that a wife’s employment or income alone cannot be grounds for denying her maintenance, highlighting that the critical factor is whether her earnings can sustain the standard of living she enjoyed in her matrimonial home.
In dismissing a revision petition, Justice Madan Pal Singh’s bench upheld the Additional Principal Judge of the Family Court in Ghaziabad’s order, which required Ravinder Singh Bisht to pay Rs 15,000 monthly to his wife, Smt. Prabhjot Kaur, under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. (corresponding to Section 144 of the BNSS), effective from the date of the application.
The husband had contested the January 4, 2025 ruling from a 2019 maintenance case, arguing that the award was unfair since his wife was educated, employed, and financially independent.
He referenced her Income Tax Return/Form-16 from 2018, which indicated an annual salary of Rs 11,28,780, asserting that this income disqualified her from seeking maintenance. He also claimed that she had voluntarily left the matrimonial home, neglected her marital responsibilities, and refused to live with his elderly parents.
Additionally, he stated that he had resigned from his job to take care of his sick parents and was struggling with financial obligations, rendering him unable to comply with the maintenance order.
In contrast, the wife’s counsel argued that the husband had not accurately represented his income or financial situation. Evidence indicated that he had been employed at J.P. Morgan, earning approximately Rs 40 lakh annually between April 2018 and April 2020.
The High Court acknowledged that it was undisputed that the wife was the legally wedded spouse of the husband. Although the husband relied on documentation of his wife’s income, the court found that he did not present sufficient evidence to demonstrate any significant decrease in his own earning capacity.
The court also noted that, even if the wife had some independent income, the records showed a considerable disparity between the financial capabilities of both parties. Her income could not be deemed sufficient to allow her to maintain the lifestyle she was accustomed to during their marriage.
Rejecting the husband’s claims of financial hardship, the court concluded that his assertions regarding liabilities and inability to pay lacked substantiation and reliable evidence. It reiterated that the purpose of Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. is not just to avoid destitution but to ensure the wife lives with dignity in line with her husband’s status.
Citing Supreme Court rulings in Shailja v. Khobbanna (2018) and Rajnesh v. Neha (2021), the court emphasized that the key consideration is not simply whether the wife is earning, but whether her income is adequate to maintain her pre-marital standard of living.
Concluding that there was no evidence of error or irregularity in the Family Court’s decision, the High Court affirmed that the maintenance awarded was fair and reasonable, thereby dismissing the criminal revision.
Case Title: Ravinder Singh Bisht vs. State of UP and Another
Click Here to Read More Reports on Maintenance