Allahabad HC Dismisses Husband's Revision Against Rs 5,000 Monthly Maintenance, Holds Capacity to Earn Triggers Obligation Under Section 125

The Allahabad High Court upheld a Family Court order directing a driver-husband to pay maintenance to his wife, rejecting claims of unemployment and the wife's alleged income from sewing work.

The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad has dismissed a criminal revision filed by a husband challenging a Family Court order that directed him to pay his wife Rs 4,000 per month from the date of institution of proceedings and Rs 5,000 per month from the date of the order under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Justice Garima Prashad, sitting singly at Court No. 46, delivered the judgment on 17 June 2026, after reserving it on 20 April 2026. The court held that a husband who is an able-bodied, skilled person cannot escape his statutory obligation to maintain his wife merely by asserting unemployment or a meagre income. The allotment of a house under the Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana, the court added, cannot be treated as a source of livelihood that disentitles a wife from claiming maintenance.

The Dispute Before the High Court

The underlying proceedings arose from Maintenance Case No. 242 of 2018 before the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Court No. 2, Bulandshahr, titled Smt. Tabassum @ Tanoon v. Mannan. The wife, opposite party no. 2, had claimed that her marriage with the revisionist was solemnised on 03.12.2016 according to Muslim rites and customs. She alleged that after marriage she was subjected to cruelty and harassment in connection with demands for additional dowry and was eventually compelled to leave the matrimonial home and reside with her parental family. She sought maintenance of Rs 20,000 per month.

The husband contested the proceedings. While admitting the marital relationship, he denied the allegations and pleaded that the wife had left the matrimonial home on her own accord. He asserted that she was earning through sewing and embroidery work and was capable of maintaining herself. He also stated that he was working as a driver earning approximately Rs 5,000 per month and was presently unemployed, making him financially incapable of paying the claimed amount.

The Family Court, upon considering the evidence, found that the wife was the legally wedded wife of the revisionist, that she was residing separately for sufficient cause, and that no reliable evidence had been produced to establish that she possessed any independent source of income sufficient to maintain herself. The Family Court accordingly allowed her application and directed payment of maintenance at Rs 4,000 per month from the date of institution and Rs 5,000 per month from the date of the order. The husband challenged this order by filing Criminal Revision No. 363 of 2024 before the Allahabad High Court.

The Legal Questions Raised

Before the High Court, the revisionist's counsel argued that the impugned order was contrary to the evidence on record and suffered from misappreciation of material facts. The core contentions were two-fold: first, that the wife was earning through sewing and embroidery and was therefore not entitled to maintenance; and second, that the maintenance amount awarded exceeded the financial capacity of the revisionist given his limited income as a driver and his present unemployment.

The High Court framed the principal dispute as one concerning the wife's entitlement to maintenance and the quantum awarded, noting that the marital relationship itself was not in dispute.

How the Bench Reasoned

Justice Garima Prashad began by setting out the object of Section 125 CrPC — to prevent destitution and vagrancy and to provide a swift and efficacious remedy to a wife who is unable to maintain herself. The court drew on three Supreme Court decisions to anchor its reasoning.

In Chaturbhuj v. Sita Bai, (2008) 2 SCC 316, the Supreme Court had held that the expression “unable to maintain herself” does not mean that the wife must be absolutely destitute before she can claim maintenance. In Bhuwan Mohan Singh v. Meena, (2015) 6 SCC 353, the Supreme Court observed that the purpose of maintenance proceedings is to ensure that a wife is able to live with dignity and is not reduced to a state of financial deprivation. In Shamima Farooqui v. Shahid Khan, (2015) 5 SCC 705, the court reiterated that an able-bodied husband cannot evade his obligation to maintain his wife.

Applying these principles, the High Court rejected the revisionist's contention that the wife's sewing and embroidery work disentitled her from maintenance. The court observed that no cogent evidence had been brought on record to establish that she had a regular and sufficient source of income enabling her to maintain herself. Mere assertions in pleadings, unsupported by satisfactory evidence, could not be accepted as proof of financial independence.

On the allotment of a house under the Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana, the court was equally clear: a residential house allotted under a welfare scheme cannot be treated as a source of livelihood that disentitles a wife from claiming maintenance.

The court was equally unpersuaded by the revisionist's claim of financial incapacity. The Family Court had recorded a finding that the revisionist was a skilled driver and an able-bodied person capable of earning. The High Court affirmed that the capacity to earn and the obligation to maintain are the relevant considerations under Section 125 CrPC, and that a husband cannot avoid his statutory obligation merely by asserting unemployment or a meagre income.

On the quantum, the court found that Rs 4,000 per month from the date of institution and Rs 5,000 per month from the date of the order could not be said to be excessive or unreasonable. Having regard to the prevailing cost of living and the object of Section 125 CrPC, the amounts were described as modest and justified.

Scope of Revisional Jurisdiction

The court also addressed the limits of its own jurisdiction. It reiterated the settled position that while exercising revisional jurisdiction, the High Court does not sit as a court of appeal to reassess or re-appreciate evidence merely because another view may be possible. Interference is warranted only where findings suffer from manifest illegality, perversity, or material irregularity resulting in a miscarriage of justice. The court found no such infirmity in the Family Court's order.

The findings of the Family Court were held to be based on proper appreciation of the evidence and free from any illegality, perversity, or jurisdictional error warranting interference.

Order

Criminal Revision No. 363 of 2024 was dismissed on 17 June 2026. The maintenance order passed by the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Court No. 2, Bulandshahr on 01.09.2023 in Maintenance Case No. 242 of 2018 stands. The wife, opposite party no. 2, did not appear despite service of notice; the revisionist was represented by Sri Balram Bind, Advocate, holding the brief of Sri Shyam Narain Pandey. Sri Pradeep Kumar appeared as learned A.G.A. for the State.