The Allahabad High Court granted relief to a young advocate by reducing the maintenance payable to his estranged wife, acknowledging the financial hardships and instability commonly faced by lawyers during the early years of legal practice in district courts.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
UTTAR PRADESH: The Allahabad High Court has reduced the monthly maintenance payable by a husband, a junior lawyer, to his estranged wife, observing that advocates often face severe financial hardship during the initial years of practice, particularly in district courts.
The Court reduced the maintenance amount from ₹5,000 to ₹3,750 per month, holding that the earlier amount was not proportionate to the husband’s uncertain and fluctuating income.
Case Background
The High Court was hearing a Criminal Revision Petition filed by the husband challenging the order dated May 16, 2024, passed by the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Pilibhit.
By the impugned order, the Family Court had directed the husband to pay ₹5,000 per month to his wife as maintenance under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC).
Arguments by the Parties
The Husband
Counsel for the revisionist submitted that:
- The husband completed his LL.B. in 2016
- He has recently started practicing law in the District Court under a senior advocate
- His income is highly uncertain and irregular
- On some days, he earns only ₹300–₹400, while on many days, he earns nothing at all
- He is also preparing for competitive examinations, making it extremely difficult to meet even basic livelihood expenses
It was argued that the maintenance amount fixed by the Family Court was beyond his financial capacity.
Wife’s Stand and State’s Opposition
Opposing the revision, counsel for the wife and the learned Additional Government Advocate (AGA) contended that:
- The husband is a practicing lawyer earning a handsome income
- He allegedly owns 8 bighas of land and two houses
- He earns more than ₹50,000 per month as rental income
- Considering the present inflation, the awarded maintenance amount was reasonable and not excessive
Court’s Observations
Justice Madan Pal Singh noted that the marriage between the parties was undisputed.
On the issue of income, the Court observed that although the husband completed his law degree in 2016, he had only recently begun practicing law. The Court took judicial notice of the struggles faced by young advocates.
“It is a matter of common knowledge that most lawyers at the initial stage of practice in district courts struggle to earn sufficient income and often face severe financial hardship,”
the Court observed.
The Bench further noted that no documentary evidence had been produced to establish any stable or regular income of the husband.
The High Court relied upon key Supreme Court precedents, including:
- Rajnesh vs. Neha (2021) 2 SCC 324
- Kalyan Dey Chowdhury vs. Rita Dey Chowdhury Nee Nandy (AIR 2017 SC 2383)
- Kulbhushan Kumar vs. Raj Kumari (1970) 3 SCC 129
These judgments emphasize that maintenance must be reasonable, fair, and proportionate to the paying capacity of the husband.
The Court held that the maintenance amount of ₹5,000 per month was not commensurate with the uncertain and fluctuating income of the revisionist.
While reaffirming that a husband has a legal obligation to maintain his wife, the Court clarified that such an obligation cannot exceed his financial capacity.
Final Directions:
- Maintenance reduced to ₹3,750 per month
- Payable from the date of the maintenance application
- Any arrears are to be cleared in 15 equal monthly installments
- First installment to be paid on or before December 20, 2025
Case Title:
Sri Hiralal vs. State of U.P. and Another
Criminal Revision No. 3510 of 2024
READ ORDER
Click Here to Read More Reports on Maintenance