The Allahabad High Court has refused to interfere with a Family Court order directing Ravinder Singh Bisht to pay ₹15,000 per month as maintenance to his wife, Prabhjot Kaur. The court made it clear that a woman’s employment, by itself, is not a reason to deny support under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The ruling came while dismissing a criminal revision filed by the husband against the Ghaziabad Family Court’s order.
Background of the Case
The dispute began with a maintenance case filed by Prabhjot Kaur in 2019. In January 2025, the Family Court ordered Ravinder Singh Bisht to pay her ₹15,000 per month from the date of the application. Challenging this, the husband approached the High Court, arguing that his wife was educated, employed, and financially independent. He relied on a Form-16/Income Tax document showing her annual salary and also claimed she had left the matrimonial home on her own. He further said he had financial burdens and had left his job to care for his ailing parents.
Read also:- Delhi High Court Upholds UPSC Decision, Rejects ST Candidate’s Plea Over Prosecutor Post Experience Criteria
On the other hand, the wife’s counsel pointed out that the husband had earlier worked with J.P. Morgan and earned a much higher income, around ₹40 lakh per year during 2018–2020. It was also argued that he had not disclosed his true income and lifestyle before the court.
Court’s Observations
Justice Madan Pal Singh noted that it was not in dispute that the parties are legally married. The court examined the documents and statements on record and found a clear difference in the earning capacity and financial status of the two.
Read also:- Senior Citizens Act Must Protect Parents, Not Dilute Their Rights: Jharkhand High Court
“The object of Section 125 Cr.P.C. is not merely to prevent destitution, but to ensure that the wife is able to live with dignity, consistent with the status of the husband,” the bench observed. It added that even if the wife has some income, that does not automatically take away her right to maintenance, especially when the husband’s earning capacity is far higher.
The court also noted that the husband had not placed convincing material to prove that he truly lacked the means to pay the amount fixed by the Family Court. His claim of financial difficulty remained, in the court’s words, a “bald assertion.”
Decision
Relying on Supreme Court rulings that say a working wife is not automatically barred from claiming maintenance, the High Court held that the amount awarded was fair and reasonable. Finding no illegality or serious error in the Family Court’s order, the court dismissed the criminal revision and upheld the direction to pay ₹15,000 per month as maintenance.
Case Name: Ravinder Singh Bisht vs State of Uttar Pradesh & Another
Case Number: Criminal Revision No. 1637 of 2025
Date of Decision: 5 February 2026
