The Allahabad High Court has declined to increase or set aside a maintenance order directing a husband to pay ₹15,000 per month to his wife under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). The Court held that maintenance must balance the claimant’s needs with the paying spouse’s actual financial capacity and should not become an unmerited financial advantage.
Justice Lakshmi Kant Shukla delivered the judgment on September 22, 2026, while deciding two connected criminal revisions arising from the same Family Court order.
Background
The dispute arose from an order dated November 4, 2024, passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Jaunpur, in Case No. 162 of 2022. The Family Court had allowed the wife’s application under Section 125 CrPC and directed the husband to pay ₹15,000 per month as maintenance from the date of filing of the application.
The husband challenged the order, while the wife separately sought an enhancement of the maintenance amount. The wife argued that the husband was a co-founder and CEO of InnoApps Technologies Private Limited and earned around ₹4 lakh per month. However, the record contained a salary slip showing his monthly salary as ₹50,000.
The husband, meanwhile, argued that the wife was capable of supporting herself. He relied on documents showing that she had worked as a teacher and had earned ₹45,000 per month during August, September and October 2021. The wife disputed that these documents established any continuing income when the maintenance proceedings were instituted in 2022.
The High Court found that the wife could not establish that the husband earned ₹4 lakh per month. Although she established that he was a co-founder of the company, the salary record showed his monthly income as ₹50,000. The Court held that the company’s authorised share capital or paid-up share capital alone could not establish that it generated sufficient income to support the claimed salary.
Referring to the Supreme Court’s decision in Kalyan Dey Chowdhury v. Rita Dey Chowdhury Nee Nandy, the Court noted that 25% of the husband’s net income may ordinarily serve as a reasonable benchmark, though it is only a guiding factor and not a fixed rule. Since the ₹15,000 maintenance already exceeded 25% of the assessed ₹50,000 monthly income, the Court found no basis for enhancement.
The Court further explained:
“The object of Section 125 Cr.P.C. is to prevent destitution and vagrancy and to ensure that a wife, child or parent who is unable to maintain himself or herself is not left without the basic means of subsistence.”
The Court added that maintenance is intended to secure sustenance and dignity, but “not a means of creating a bonanza or windfall in favour of the claimant.”
The High Court found no ground to interfere with the Family Court’s order dated November 4, 2024. It accordingly dismissed both Criminal Revision No. 542 of 2025 filed by the husband and connected Criminal Revision No. 6290 of 2024 filed by the wife.
