Allahabad HC Upholds Rs 20,000 Monthly Maintenance for Wife; Chartered Accountant Husband's Plea of Unemployment Rejected

Justice Garima Prashad dismissed a criminal revision by a Chartered Accountant husband who claimed unemployment, affirming the Family Court's maintenance award of Rs 20,000 per month to his wife from the date of application.

The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad has dismissed a criminal revision filed by Alok Tiwari, a qualified Chartered Accountant, against a maintenance order passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Mainpuri. Justice Garima Prashad, sitting singly in Court No. 46, affirmed the Family Court's direction requiring Tiwari to pay Rs 20,000 per month to his wife, Smt. Neha Shukla, under Section 125 Cr.P.C., with effect from the date of filing of the application on 17 June 2017. The court found that Tiwari's claims of unemployment and financial incapacity were contradicted by his own admissions, his lifestyle, and the testimony of his own witnesses. The judgment was reserved on 27 April 2026 and delivered on 17 June 2026.

The Dispute Before the High Court

The parties were married on 12 February 2013 according to Hindu rites. Neha Shukla filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. at Police Station Kotwali, District Mainpuri, registered as Case No. 288 of 2017. She alleged that she was compelled to leave the matrimonial home due to cruelty, harassment, and neglect by her husband and his family members. A specific allegation was that a demand of Rs 25 lakhs was made for the purchase of a flat, and that she and her widowed mother — a retired Headmistress — were subjected to mental and physical cruelty when the demand was not met.

The Family Court partly allowed the application by its judgment dated 14 August 2024, directing Tiwari to pay maintenance at Rs 20,000 per month from 17 June 2017. Tiwari challenged this order before the High Court, raising two broad grounds: that his wife was financially independent and therefore not entitled to maintenance, and that the quantum awarded was excessive given his own alleged financial difficulties following the liquidation of his employer, Jaypee Group.

Whether the Wife Had Sufficient Cause to Reside Separately

Tiwari denied all allegations of cruelty and contended that Neha Shukla had voluntarily left the matrimonial home, refused marital obligations, and threatened to implicate him in false criminal cases. The Family Court, however, found that continuous pressure on the wife and her widowed mother to arrange money for a flat — even if not strictly dowry in the technical sense — amounted to cruelty.

The High Court agreed with this reasoning. It noted that Tiwari had admittedly received Rs 5.5 lakhs from Neha Shukla's mother in connection with a flat booked through an SBI loan. Although Tiwari described this as a loan, the Family Court had considered the surrounding circumstances while assessing the allegation of financial pressure.

The court also examined medical papers relating to injuries sustained by Neha Shukla while she was residing with Tiwari. His explanations for the injuries were inconsistent: at different points, he suggested she had slipped and fallen, that the fall occurred in the bathroom, that it happened in the bedroom, and that she had slipped from the staircase. Justice Prashad found that these contradictions were rightly treated as relevant by the Family Court.

After Neha Shukla was left at her parental home on 18 December 2016, Tiwari promptly instituted divorce proceedings and made no serious effort to bring her back. In mediation, Neha Shukla expressed willingness to resume cohabitation; Tiwari did not. The court also noted that Tiwari had, in his divorce proceedings, alleged that his wife was mentally weak and of questionable character, but produced no cogent evidence for either allegation. He himself admitted she was highly educated, holding M.Sc. and B.Ed. qualifications. The court held that making baseless allegations touching the character and mental condition of the wife was itself a relevant circumstance in assessing whether she had sufficient cause to reside separately.

On a cumulative consideration of all these factors, the High Court found that the Family Court's conclusion — that Neha Shukla had sufficient reason to reside separately and that Tiwari had neglected her — was based on appreciation of evidence and could not be said to be perverse.

The Husband's Financial Capacity and the Adverse Inference

Tiwari's principal argument on quantum was that after Jaypee Group went into liquidation, he lost regular employment and was working only as a freelance Chartered Accountant with irregular income. He also pleaded liabilities towards his aged parents and younger brothers.

The High Court found this plea unsupported by evidence and, in fact, contradicted by Tiwari's own admissions and the testimony of his own witnesses. Tiwari admitted that he had practised as a Chartered Accountant even before marriage and had worked at various locations including Noida, Kanpur, Lucknow, and Bewar. After leaving Jaypee Group, he had joined another concern called “Intact.” He admitted owning a Honda City car and having taken Neha Shukla on trips to Goa, Delhi, and Udaipur by air, with hotel stays — supported by documentary evidence of air tickets, hotel bills, and travel expenses.

Critically, in objections filed against an interim maintenance order dated 12 September 2018, Tiwari himself admitted earning approximately Rs 90,000 per month at that time. He sought to explain this away as a past figure, but produced no reliable documentary evidence of any subsequent fall in income.

His own witnesses undermined his case further. D.W.-2 stated in cross-examination that Tiwari had never suffered from depression and that his employment had not ceased. D.W.-3 admitted that Tiwari was working as a Chartered Accountant at Lucknow and was engaged in private consultancy work.

The court applied the principle that where a person has special knowledge of their own income — as a Chartered Accountant plainly does — and withholds the best evidence such as income tax returns, professional receipts, bank statements, and complete accounts, the court is justified in drawing an adverse inference. Justice Prashad held that the Family Court committed no error in assessing Tiwari's earning capacity on the basis of his qualifications, admissions, lifestyle, prior income disclosure, and professional engagement.

Education Alone Cannot Deny a Wife Maintenance

Tiwari argued that Neha Shukla was highly educated, earned from coaching and tuition work, and was supported by her mother's pension and family properties. The High Court rejected each limb of this argument.

On the coaching income, the court found that no document relating to any coaching institute, tuition income, appointment, salary, bank transactions, or professional engagement was placed on record. The mere fact that a wife is educated cannot disentitle her from maintenance. Education and earning capacity are relevant considerations, but they cannot be equated with actual and sufficient income. The test under Section 125 Cr.P.C. is whether the wife is able to maintain herself in the manner contemplated by law.

On the mother's pension and family properties, the court held that the legal obligation to maintain the wife rests with the husband. The pension of the wife's mother or properties belonging to the mother cannot be treated as the independent income of the wife. Although sale deeds relating to properties sold by the mother were filed, no material was produced to show that any property stood in the exclusive name or possession of Neha Shukla. She clarified that the properties had been sold by her mother for marriage expenses and repayment of liabilities, and that her own share was limited.

The court applied the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Rajnesh v. Neha and Others, (2021) 2 SCC 324, which requires maintenance to be determined having regard to the status of the parties, the reasonable needs of the wife, the income and liabilities of the husband, and the standard of living enjoyed by the wife in the matrimonial home. The object of Section 125 Cr.P.C. is to prevent destitution and vagrancy and to ensure that a wife who is unable to maintain herself is not left without means of support.

Scope of Revisional Jurisdiction

Justice Prashad also addressed the limits of the court's revisional jurisdiction. A revisional court does not sit as a regular court of appeal to reappreciate the entire evidence merely because another view may be possible. Interference is warranted only where the finding of the court below suffers from patent illegality, perversity, jurisdictional error, or material irregularity. The Family Court had considered the pleadings, oral testimony, documentary evidence, admissions, and surrounding circumstances in detail. The conclusions recorded were possible and reasonable conclusions based on evidence. No perversity or illegality was shown.

On the question of the date from which maintenance was awarded, the court found no ground for interference. The application was filed on 17 June 2017, and the Family Court had recorded reasons for awarding maintenance from that date. This was consistent with the settled principle that maintenance may be awarded from the date of application where the facts justify such an order.

Order

The criminal revision was dismissed as devoid of merit. The judgment and order dated 14 August 2024 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Mainpuri in Case No. 288 of 2017 was affirmed. Tiwari is directed to continue paying maintenance to Neha Shukla at Rs 20,000 per month from 17 June 2017. Any amount already paid towards interim maintenance or maintenance pursuant to court orders shall be adjusted against the total arrears. The interim order, if any, stands vacated. No order as to costs.