The Allahabad High Court has upheld a Family Court order directing a husband to pay ₹20,000 per month as maintenance to his wife, observing that a woman's educational qualifications alone cannot be treated as proof that she is financially self-sufficient. The Court dismissed the husband's revision petition after finding no legal error in the Family Court's assessment of the evidence.
Background of the Case
The dispute arose from an order passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Mainpuri, in August 2024 under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.). The Family Court had directed Alok Tiwari to pay monthly maintenance of ₹20,000 to his wife, Neha Shukla, with effect from June 17, 2017, the date on which the maintenance application was filed.
Before the High Court, the husband argued that his wife was highly educated, capable of earning through coaching and tuition, and therefore not entitled to maintenance. He also claimed that he no longer had regular employment and was working only as a freelance Chartered Accountant with an irregular income.
Court's Observations
Justice Garima Prashad noted that the Family Court had carefully examined the evidence before concluding that the wife had sufficient reasons to live separately and that the husband had neglected to maintain her.
The Court observed,
"The mere fact that opposite party no.2 is educated cannot disentitle her from maintenance. Education and earning capacity are relevant considerations, but they cannot be equated with actual and sufficient income."
The High Court also found that the husband, a qualified Chartered Accountant, had failed to produce key financial records such as income tax returns, bank statements or complete professional accounts to establish his claim of reduced earnings.
Referring to his admissions during the proceedings, the Court noted that he had worked at multiple places, continued professional consultancy, owned a Honda City car, and had previously disclosed earning around ₹90,000 per month. It further observed that these circumstances supported the Family Court's conclusion regarding his financial capacity.
The bench further remarked,
"Where such a person withholds the best evidence, the court is justified in drawing an adverse inference."
Reliance on Supreme Court Precedent
The High Court relied on the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Rajnesh v. Neha, observing that maintenance should be determined after considering the parties' status, the husband's income and liabilities, the wife's reasonable needs, and the standard of living enjoyed during marriage.
The Court found no reliable evidence showing that the wife had an independent source of income sufficient to maintain herself.
Decision
Finding no perversity or illegality in the Family Court's findings, the Allahabad High Court dismissed the criminal revision petition. It affirmed the order directing the husband to continue paying maintenance of ₹20,000 per month from June 17, 2017, while allowing adjustment of any amount already paid towards interim maintenance.
Case Details:
Case Title: Alok Tiwari v. State of U.P. and Another
Case Number: Criminal Revision No. 5768 of 2024
Judge: Justice Garima Prashad
Decision Date: June 17, 2026
