The Allahabad High Court has dismissed a criminal revision filed by a husband challenging a Family Court order directing him to pay maintenance to his wife. The Court held that merely because the wife received a house under the Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana (PMAY) or allegedly earned through sewing work, she could not be denied maintenance in the absence of convincing evidence that she was financially independent.
Background of the Case
The dispute arose after the Family Court at Bulandshahr allowed the wife's application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) and directed the husband to pay ₹4,000 per month from the date of filing of the case and ₹5,000 per month from the date of the order.
Before the High Court, the husband argued that he was an illiterate driver with limited income and was currently unemployed. He also claimed that his wife earned through sewing and embroidery work and had been allotted a house under the PM Awas Yojana, making her capable of supporting herself.
The wife, on the other hand, maintained that she had been forced to leave her matrimonial home after being subjected to cruelty and harassment and that her husband had failed to provide financial support despite having the means to do so.
Court's Observations
Justice Garima Prashad noted that the marital relationship between the parties was undisputed and that the central issue was whether the wife was entitled to maintenance and whether the amount awarded was justified.
Referring to settled Supreme Court precedents, the Court reiterated that the purpose of Section 125 CrPC is to prevent destitution and ensure that a wife who is unable to maintain herself can live with dignity.
Addressing the husband's contention regarding the wife's alleged income, the Court observed:
“Mere assertions in pleadings, unsupported by satisfactory evidence, cannot be accepted as proof of financial independence.”
The Court further clarified:
“Allotment of a residential house under a welfare scheme cannot be treated as a source of livelihood disentitling a wife from claiming maintenance.”
On the husband's plea of financial incapacity, the Court found that the Family Court had rightly considered him to be an able-bodied and skilled driver capable of earning. It emphasized that a husband cannot avoid his legal obligation to maintain his wife merely by claiming unemployment or a modest income.
Court's Decision
The High Court held that the maintenance awarded by the Family Court-₹4,000 per month from the institution of proceedings and ₹5,000 per month from the date of the order was neither excessive nor unreasonable in light of the prevailing cost of living and the object of Section 125 CrPC.
Finding no illegality, perversity or jurisdictional error in the Family Court's judgment, the Court declined to interfere in its revisional jurisdiction and dismissed the husband's criminal revision.
Case Details
Case Title: Mannan @ Abdul Mannan v. State of U.P. and Another
Case Number: Criminal Revision No. 363 of 2024
Judge: Justice Garima Prashad
Decision Date: 17 June 2026
