The Allahabad High Court has set aside a Family Court order that denied maintenance to a wife while granting only a modest amount to her two minor children. Holding that maintenance proceedings are meant to prevent financial hardship and not to conduct a detailed matrimonial trial, the Court ruled that the wife was entitled to financial support and enhanced the maintenance payable to the children.
Background of the Case
The revision was filed by Smt. Reenu and her two minor children against an order of the Family Court at Bulandshahr dated December 14, 2023. The Family Court had refused maintenance to the wife, concluding that she failed to prove sufficient reasons for living separately from her husband. It, however, directed the husband to pay Rs. 3,000 per month each to the two children from the date of filing of the application.
Before the High Court, the wife argued that the Family Court had adopted an incorrect approach by examining the case like a full-fledged matrimonial dispute instead of a summary proceeding under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). She also contended that the maintenance granted to the children was unrealistic considering their educational and daily living expenses.
Court's Observations
Justice Garima Prashad observed that proceedings under Section 125 CrPC are intended to provide immediate financial relief to dependents and are not meant to determine every allegation made between spouses with the strict standards applicable in criminal or matrimonial trials.
The Court noted that the husband had admittedly stopped paying maintenance after his retirement from the Army in November 2020. It also took note of the undisputed fact that the parties had been living separately amid serious matrimonial discord and that divorce proceedings had earlier been initiated by the husband.
Rejecting the reasoning adopted by the Family Court, the bench observed:
“The Court is not required to insist upon strict proof of cruelty as would be necessary in a criminal prosecution or in a contested matrimonial cause.”
The Court further emphasized that mere allegations of adultery cannot deprive a wife of maintenance unless they are legally established.
Referring to the Supreme Court's decision in Rajnesh v. Neha, the High Court reiterated that maintenance should be realistic and sufficient to enable the claimant to live with dignity rather than being symbolic.
Maintenance for Children Found Inadequate
The High Court found that Rs. 3,000 per month for each child was insufficient in present-day circumstances.
The bench observed:
“An amount of Rs.3,000/- per month per child does not meet even the minimum reasonable expenditure of school-going children.”
The Court said that expenses relating to education, food, clothing, transport and healthcare had to be considered while determining maintenance.
Decision
Allowing the criminal revision, the High Court set aside the Family Court's findings denying maintenance to the wife. It held that the husband had neglected to maintain his wife after November 2020 and that she had sufficient reason to live separately.
The Court directed the husband to pay:
Rs. 5,000 per month to the wife
Rs. 4,000 per month each to the two minor children
The total maintenance of Rs. 13,000 per month will be payable from February 2, 2021, the date on which the maintenance application was filed. The Court also directed that arrears be calculated after adjusting amounts already paid and cleared in twelve equal monthly instalments along with future maintenance.
It further clarified that in case of default, the wife would be entitled to seek recovery of the amount, including through deduction from the husband's pension in accordance with law.
Case Details
Case Title: Smt. Reenu and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another
Case Number: Criminal Revision No. 1370 of 2024
Judge: Justice Garima Prashad
Decision Date: June 17, 2026
-300x169.webp)
