Allahabad HC Raises Wife's Maintenance from ₹12,000 to ₹20,000 After Husband Fails to File Income Affidavit

Applying the 25% net-salary guideline from Kalyan Dey Chowdhury, the Allahabad High Court enhanced Section 125 maintenance and dismissed the husband's parallel revision challenging the award.

Justice Achal Sachdev, sitting singly at the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, on 10 July 2026 decided two criminal revisions arising from the same Family Court order. The wife, Smt. Pinki Alias Preeti, sought an increase in the ₹12,000 per month maintenance awarded to her by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Kanpur Dehat. Her former husband, Jai Prakash, filed his own revision seeking to have that very award set aside. The court allowed the wife's revision and enhanced the monthly maintenance to ₹20,000, effective from the date of her original application on 26 November 2021. The husband's revision was dismissed, the court finding no perversity or illegality in the Family Court's underlying order.

The Two Revisions Before the Court

The common order under challenge — dated 31 August 2024 — was passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Kanpur Dehat, in Case No. 656 of 2021. The Family Court had allowed Smt. Pinki's application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and directed Jai Prakash to pay ₹12,000 per month from 26 November 2021, along with ₹5,000 towards litigation expenses.

Smt. Pinki filed Criminal Revision No. 7753 of 2025, not to challenge the award itself, but to seek an enhancement of the quantum. Jai Prakash filed Criminal Revision No. 5226 of 2024, seeking to have the award struck down entirely. Since both revisions arose from the same order, Justice Sachdev heard and decided them together.

The marriage between the parties had taken place on 13 February 2010. Smt. Pinki's case before the trial court was that she was subjected to physical cruelty and illegal dowry demands by her husband and his family, and was compelled to leave the matrimonial home on 2 April 2014. She lodged a First Information Report, registered as Case Crime No. 251 of 2014, under Sections 498-A, 323, 308, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. A charge-sheet was filed and the trial remained pending.

Jai Prakash filed a petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, which was decreed in his favour on 18 November 2019 by the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Kanpur Dehat. The divorce court directed him to pay ₹50,000 as permanent alimony, which he deposited. Smt. Pinki's appeal against that decree was pending before the High Court at the time of the present proceedings.

Earlier, Smt. Pinki had received ₹9,000 per month in maintenance from 2017 to 2019 and, on that basis, withdrew a prior Section 125 application (Case No. 395 of 2015). After the divorce decree was passed and maintenance payments stopped, she filed the fresh application in 2021 that gave rise to both revisions.

The Husband's Position and the Interim Arrangement

Jai Prakash's counsel argued before the High Court that Smt. Pinki had left the matrimonial home of her own accord in October 2013, taking her stridhan and his mother's jewellery, and had filed the criminal case in retaliation to his petition for restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act. He also pointed to the ₹50,000 permanent alimony already paid following the divorce decree.

In Criminal Revision No. 5226 of 2024, the High Court had earlier granted an interim order on 5 December 2025. That order required Jai Prakash to deposit arrears of maintenance from 26 November 2021 to that date and to continue paying ₹6,000 per month pending the revision. By the time of the final hearing, he had paid ₹6,83,604 into Smt. Pinki's account pursuant to that interim direction.

How the Family Court Reached ₹12,000

The Family Court's reasoning, as recorded in the High Court's judgment, rested on two pillars. First, Smt. Pinki had filed an affidavit of her income, assets, and liabilities in compliance with the guidelines issued by the Supreme Court in Rajnesh v. Neha, (2021) 2 SCC 324. Jai Prakash had filed no such affidavit. The trial court treated that failure adversely against him.

Second, Jai Prakash's salary slip for June 2024 showed a total gross amount of ₹86,674 per month, with a net amount deposited in his bank account of ₹67,043 per month. No evidence was led by him to rebut or contradict that documentary record. On this basis, the Family Court awarded ₹12,000 per month.

The Family Court also held that Smt. Pinki had not remarried after the divorce and that an appeal was pending against the divorce decree. Jai Prakash had not alleged that she was living in adultery or had remarried — the two grounds under Section 125(4) of the CrPC that would have disentitled her from maintenance.

The Scope of Revisional Jurisdiction

Before addressing the quantum, Justice Sachdev set out the boundaries of the court's revisional power. A revisional court examines legality, propriety, or jurisdictional correctness. It can quash, remit, or set aside an order that is perverse or illegal, but it cannot substitute its own factual determination. Revisional power is supervisory, not appellate.

The court noted that, ordinarily, a revisional court cannot increase or reduce the quantum of maintenance. The determination of quantum is a substantive adjudication based on evidence, and even where a trial court has awarded a meagre amount, the High Court in revision cannot enhance it as a matter of course.

The exception applies where the trial court has ignored admitted income, applied settled principles incorrectly, or reached a finding that is perverse on the record. In that situation, the revisional court may interfere with the quantum and correct the error.

Justice Sachdev found that such a situation existed here. The Family Court had before it Jai Prakash's salary slip showing a gross salary of ₹86,674 and a net credit to his bank of ₹67,043 per month. Despite this, the court had awarded only ₹12,000 per month — well below even the broad benchmark of 25% of net salary established by the Supreme Court.

The 25% Guideline and Its Application

Justice Sachdev relied on Kalyan Dey Chowdhury v. Rita Dey Chowdhury Nee Nandy, (2017) 14 SCC 200, in which the Supreme Court held that 25% of the husband's net monthly salary may be treated as a just and proper figure for spousal maintenance, subject to variation depending on circumstances. The court clarified, consistent with that judgment, that the 25% figure is a broad guideline or benchmark and is not mandatory; courts may award more or less depending on the facts, and “net income” means income after mandatory deductions and taxes, not gross salary.

On the admitted salary slip, 25% of the net salary of ₹67,043 would come to approximately ₹16,761. The court also took into account the prevailing rate of inflation and the standard of living to which Smt. Pinki was entitled. It found the ₹12,000 figure to be neither just nor adequate for her sustenance.

On the entitlement question, Justice Sachdev rested on Vanamala v. H.M. Ranganatha Bhatta, 1995 (5) SCC 299, in which the Supreme Court held that the grant of a divorce decree does not disentitle a legally wedded wife who has not remarried and is not living in adultery from seeking maintenance. The object of maintenance, the court observed, is to ensure that the wife is able to live with dignity and not merely survive.

From Rajnesh v. Neha, the court also noted the direction in paragraph 128.3 that if an order in a previous proceeding requires modification, it must be done in the same proceeding. The court observed that the 25% guideline from Kalyan Dey Chowdhury required the Family Court to have awarded a higher figure on the admitted salary evidence, and the failure to do so was an error that brought the case within the revisional court's power to correct.

Justice Sachdev also extracted extensively from Bhuwan Mohar Singh v. Meena, (2015) 6 SCC 353, where the Supreme Court had cautioned Family Courts against granting adjournments in a routine manner and allowing maintenance cases to drag on. The court in that case observed that “procrastination is the greatest assassin of the lis” in family matters and that Family Court judges must remain alive to the emotional fragmentation that delay feeds.

Outcome

Criminal Revision No. 7753 of 2025, filed by Smt. Pinki Alias Preeti, was allowed. The monthly maintenance was enhanced from ₹12,000 to ₹20,000, payable by Jai Prakash to Smt. Pinki from 26 November 2021 — the date on which she filed her Section 125 CrPC application before the Family Court.

Criminal Revision No. 5226 of 2024, filed by Jai Prakash, was dismissed. The court found no perversity or illegality in the Family Court's impugned order dated 31 August 2024 that would warrant interference.

A copy of the judgment was directed to be placed on the record of Criminal Revision No. 5226 of 2024.