Allahabad HC Upholds Rs 20,000 Monthly Maintenance for Wife Forced Out Over Dowry Demands

Justice Achal Sachdev dismissed a husband's criminal revision, holding that denial of maintenance forces a wife into destitution and offends the constitutional guarantee of dignity under Article 21.

The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad on 7 August 2026 dismissed a criminal revision filed by a software engineer challenging a Family Court order directing him to pay Rs 20,000 per month in maintenance to his wife under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Justice Achal Sachdev, sitting singly at Court No. 86, found no illegality in the order passed by the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Gautam Buddh Nagar on 30 March 2024. The revision was heard in the absence of counsel for the revisionist, who had failed to appear on numerous previous dates despite a direction to deposit the awarded maintenance by the 10th of every month. The court grounded its reasoning in both the statutory framework of Section 125 CrPC and the constitutional guarantees under Articles 15(3), 21, 39 and 41.

The Dispute Before the High Court

Smt. Sheetal alias Priyanka married Devansh alias Chhotu on 24 July 2017 according to Hindu customs at village Tughlaqpur, Police Station Knowledge Park, District Gautam Buddh Nagar. Her case before the Family Court was that her husband and in-laws subjected her to continuous harassment, abuse and physical assault over demands for additional dowry — specifically a Swift car and a 100-square-yard plot — after her father had already incurred substantial wedding expenses.

On 30 March 2018, the applicant was allegedly assaulted and confined. On 2 April 2018, she managed to contact the police, who brought her to the police station; she was thereafter made to write an apology and released. Since that date she has been residing at her parental home, entirely dependent upon her aged and financially weak father. Her stridhan, she alleged, was retained by her husband and his family, who made no effort to inquire about her welfare or provide maintenance.

She claimed maintenance of Rs 30,000 per month, pointing out that her husband was a software engineer earning approximately Rs 70,000 per month and that his family held properties, a paint and hardware shop, rental premises, approximately 20 bighas of land and two vacant plots, generating around Rs 2,00,000 per month.

The Family Court framed five issues: whether the applicant was the legally wedded wife; whether she had reasonable and sufficient cause to live separately; whether she was unable to support herself; whether the opposite party was wealthy enough to provide maintenance and was not doing so; and from when maintenance was payable. It answered all issues in her favour and awarded Rs 20,000 per month from the date of filing the application, with arrears to be cleared within three months, and a continuing monthly payment of Rs 20,000 from the date of judgment.

The Husband's Challenge

Devansh alias Chhotu preferred Criminal Revision No. 1366 of 2026 before the Allahabad High Court, seeking to set aside the Family Court's order. The revision was taken up at Court No. 86 before Justice Achal Sachdev. However, counsel for the revisionist did not appear. Counsel for opposite party no. 2, Sri Rahul Agrawal, informed the court that the revisionist had failed to press the revision on numerous dates and had not paid any amount towards maintenance despite the Family Court's direction to do so by the 10th of every month. The hearing proceeded in the absence of the revisionist's counsel.

How the Court Reasoned

Justice Achal Sachdev examined the Family Court record and found that the marriage on 24 July 2017 was undisputed by the opposite party. The court accepted the trial court's conclusions on issues (ii) and (iii) — that the applicant had sufficient reason to reside separately and that she was unable to support herself — and on issue (iv), that the opposite party was not maintaining the applicant as per his status, a conclusion borne out by the documents he had himself filed.

The court then set out the broader legal framework within which Section 125 CrPC operates. It described maintenance as a statutory right flowing from the marital relationship, not a matter of charity or bounty. It observed that the husband carries a moral and social responsibility, beyond mere legal obligation, to prevent the wife from being reduced to penury, and that neglect of this duty leads to social disapproval and stigma as well as legal consequences.

The court drew on two Supreme Court decisions. In Bhuvan Mohan Singh v. Meena, (2015) 6 SCC 353, the Supreme Court characterised maintenance as a measure of social justice aimed at preventing vagrancy and destitution. In Chaturbhuj v. Sitabai, (2008) 2 SCC 316, the Supreme Court held that the object of maintenance is to ensure the wife is not left in penury and that the husband's responsibility flows from the very status of marriage, adding that maintenance is a right to prevent penury and is not conditional upon proof of neglect.

Justice Sachdev then located the Section 125 CrPC obligation within the constitutional scheme. He held that Article 39(a) and (f) of the Directive Principles mandate adequate means of livelihood and healthy development, and that Section 125 CrPC and Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita operationalise these directives. He further held that Article 21's guarantee of life with dignity is directly engaged: denial of maintenance that forces the wife into destitution is a violation of this constitutional guarantee. Articles 15(3), 39 and 41 were read together to require that the husband's obligation be construed not merely as a statutory duty but as a facet of social justice.

On the quantum awarded by the Family Court, the court found that the trial court had correctly taken into account the applicant's lack of independent income and the opposite party's sufficient means. The order was described as “very well reasoned and justified.”

Outcome

Justice Achal Sachdev held that the judgment and order dated 30 March 2024 passed by the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Gautam Buddh Nagar in Case No. 63/2019 warranted no interference. Criminal Revision No. 1366 of 2026 was dismissed. The maintenance award of Rs 20,000 per month — both from the date of filing and as a continuing obligation — stands in full.