Allahabad HC Sets Aside Rs 15,000 Maintenance Award, Remands for Fresh Determination After Finding Husband's Financial Disclosures Inconsistent

Justice Garima Prashad found the Family Court's maintenance quantum unjust and its effective date manifestly erroneous, remanding the matter for fresh adjudication within six months.

The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad has set aside a Family Court order awarding Rs 15,000 per month in maintenance to a wife under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, holding that the quantum was neither just nor commensurate with the parties' standard of living. Justice Garima Prashad, sitting singly in Court No. 40, allowed Criminal Revision No. 5310 of 2024 filed by Smt Komal Lakhani and remanded the matter to the Principal Judge, Family Court, Agra, for fresh determination. The court found that the husband's Income Tax Returns contained unexplained inconsistencies about his shareholding in a business, and that restricting maintenance to run only from 14 March 2022 — rather than from the date of the application in January 2015 — caused grave prejudice to the wife after nearly a decade of litigation.

The Dispute Before the High Court

The parties married on 31 August 2014 at Ahmedabad according to Sikh rites. The marriage broke down almost immediately: the revisionist alleged she was expelled from the matrimonial home on 25 September 2014 following unlawful dowry demands, after which she lodged a complaint at the Women Police Station, Agra. The opposite party no. 2, her husband, denied these allegations and contended that she left of her own accord after residing with him for roughly twenty days.

In 2015, the revisionist filed a petition under Section 125 CrPC before the Family Court, Agra, seeking Rs 25,000 per month. She described herself as unemployed and dependent on her father, a retired guard. The husband, in turn, claimed he earned only Rs 15,000 to Rs 20,000 per month, held only a 25% share in M/s G.E.C. International Study Centre — an overseas educational consultancy at Ahmedabad — and was burdened with maintaining his aged mother while suffering from depression caused by the litigation.

The Family Court, after recording evidence, awarded Rs 15,000 per month with effect from 14 March 2022. Aggrieved by the quantum and the effective date, the revisionist filed the present criminal revision seeking enhancement.

Whether the Wife's Earning Capacity Disentitled Her from Maintenance

A central argument before the High Court was that the revisionist held an MBA degree, had previously worked with Kotak Mahindra Ltd., E-Clerx at Mumbai, and M/s Quess Corporation Ltd., and had earned approximately Rs 37,000 per month for over two years before the application was filed. Account statements produced by the husband showed her income at roughly Rs 3,36,600 in the assessment year 2018–19.

Justice Prashad rejected the proposition that past employment or educational qualifications alone could defeat a maintenance claim. Relying on the Supreme Court's ruling in Chaturbhuj v. Sita Bai, (2008) 2 SCC 316, the court held that the expression “unable to maintain herself” does not require the wife to be absolutely destitute. What matters is her actual and present ability to maintain herself in a manner commensurate with the standard of living she enjoyed in the matrimonial home.

The revisionist had consistently maintained before the Family Court that she was unemployed at the time of filing the application, had no provident fund account, and was actively seeking employment. The court noted that the absence of a resume on record could not, by itself, negate her claim of present inability to maintain herself, particularly when assessed against the backdrop of the matrimonial breakdown.

The court also observed that Section 125 CrPC is summary in nature and intended to prevent vagrancy and destitution. The entitlement to maintenance must be assessed in light of the husband's socio-economic status, not merely the wife's past earnings or qualifications.

Inconsistencies in the Husband's Financial Disclosures

The husband's financial position was the other contested issue. He claimed in cross-examination that he held only a 25% share in G.E.C. International Study Centre. However, his Income Tax Returns told a different story: his ITR for 2014–15 showed a 75% shareholding, while his ITRs for 2022–23 and 2023–24 showed a 50% share. He offered no explanation for these discrepancies and stated he could not produce the firm's ITRs as he was no longer associated with it.

He further deposed that the firm suffered losses of Rs 2,50,00,000 due to poor business decisions and that he had taken a loan of Rs 1,00,00,000 from the firm in 2017, which escalated to Rs 2,50,00,000 by 2019. He declined to furnish turnover details for the preceding years. His ITR for assessment year 2022 showed a gross income of Rs 6,16,129.

The court found his conduct additionally questionable because he claimed ignorance about whether he was the proprietor of “Gamtu English Classes,” operating from a ground-plus-four-storey property of approximately 1,000 square feet at Prahladnagar, Ahmedabad. He also stated he was unaware whether the firm paid rent for those premises, which stood in the name of his mother and sister.

Justice Prashad held that the inconsistencies in his financial disclosures, coupled with his reluctance to produce complete records, cast serious doubt on his claim of limited income. The court also noted that a Magistrate had already directed payment of Rs 13,000 per month under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 by an order dated 13 October 2015 in Complaint Case No. 6 of 2015.

The Effective Date of Maintenance

The Family Court had restricted the maintenance award to run from 14 March 2022, even though the application was filed on 5 January 2015. Justice Prashad held this to be manifestly erroneous. The application had been pending for nearly a decade before the impugned order of 12 July 2024 was passed. Restricting the effective date to 2022 resulted in grave prejudice to the revisionist, who had been without maintenance for the intervening years.

The court also recorded that the opposite party no. 2 had made no effort at any stage of the proceedings to express willingness to resume cohabitation. The absence of any such offer, even during cross-examination, supported the conclusion that the revisionist was justified in living separately, and the Family Court had rightly held as much.

Outcome

Justice Garima Prashad allowed the criminal revision and remanded the matter to the Principal Judge, Family Court, Agra, for fresh determination of the quantum of maintenance under Section 125 CrPC. The Family Court was directed to afford adequate opportunity to both parties and to decide the matter preferably within six months.

Pending re-determination, the opposite party no. 2 was directed to clear all arrears of maintenance in terms of the impugned order up to date and to continue paying Rs 15,000 per month regularly until the quantum is freshly fixed. The order was pronounced on 20 April 2026.