The Allahabad High Court has dismissed a criminal revision challenging an order that enhanced monthly maintenance payable to a wife from ₹9,000 to ₹18,000. The Court held that there was no legal or jurisdictional error in the Family Court's order warranting interference. The judgment was delivered by Justice Lakshmi Kant Shukla on September 18, 2026.
Background of the Case
The proceedings arose from a maintenance dispute between Naresh Kumar and his wife. The Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Court No. 3, Kanpur Nagar, had enhanced the monthly maintenance payable to the wife under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure from ₹9,000 to ₹18,000 through an order dated August 26, 2025.
Naresh Kumar, a retired judicial officer, challenged the enhancement before the High Court. He argued that his pension had originally been fixed at ₹25,632 per month and contended that the Family Court had treated his income as ₹88,000 without reliable evidence. He also relied upon his second marriage and the responsibility of maintaining his second wife and children.
The respondent's side, however, submitted that the pension had subsequently been revised following implementation of the recommendations of the II National Judicial Pay Commission. The High Court noted that the revisionist admitted receiving approximately ₹88,000 as monthly pension after the revision.
Court's Observation on Divorce Decree
A significant issue before the High Court concerned the divorce decree obtained by Naresh Kumar from a Civil Judge (Senior Division), Unnao.
The Court examined Section 19 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, along with Section 3(17) of the General Clauses Act, 1897. The Court held that, under Section 19 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, a petition under the Act is to be presented before the District Court. It further held that the Civil Judge (Senior Division) was not the competent court to pass the divorce decree in the present case.
The Court stated, "the decree of divorce passed by Civil Judge Senior Division is decree passed by incompetent Court, therefore, such divorce of decree has no legal sanctity." It consequently held that the second marriage and children from that marriage could not be treated as a valid liability for determining the quantum of maintenance payable to the wife in the present proceedings.
Court's Observation on Maintenance
The High Court also considered the argument that the wife could receive financial assistance from her earning children. The Court did not accept this contention, observing that where the husband has the capacity to maintain his wife, the maintenance claim cannot be shifted to her children merely because they are earning.
The Court referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Kalyan Dey Chowdhury v. Rita Dey Chowdhury, observing that 25% of the husband's income may be awarded as maintenance, while noting that the Supreme Court's direction applies in the normal course.
The High Court observed that in the present case, the ₹18,000 monthly maintenance awarded by the Family Court was less than 25% of the pension of approximately ₹88,000. It therefore found no reason to reduce the amount.
Court's Decision
The High Court ultimately found no ground to interfere with the Family Court's order. It held that the impugned order did not suffer from illegality, infirmity or jurisdictional error requiring revisional interference.
Accordingly, the criminal revision filed by Naresh Kumar was dismissed and the Family Court's order enhancing the monthly maintenance to ₹18,000 was affirmed.
Case Title: Naresh Kumar v. State of U.P. and Another
Case Number: Criminal Revision No. 6959 of 2025
Judge: Hon'ble Justice Lakshmi Kant Shukla
Decision Date: September 18, 2026
