Allahabad HC Sets Aside Family Court Order Denying Wife Maintenance, Raises Children's Award from Rs 3,000 to Rs 4,000 Per Month

Justice Garima Prashad found the Family Court, Bulandshahr had wrongly applied a strict criminal standard of proof to a Section 125 Cr.P.C. maintenance claim, denying relief to a wife and two minor children of a retired Army personnel.

The Allahabad High Court has allowed a criminal revision filed by Smt. Reenu and her two minor sons, Kanha Singh and Vansh Chaudhary, against a judgment of the Family Court, Bulandshahr dated 14 December 2023. The Family Court had rejected Reenu's own maintenance claim entirely and awarded only Rs 3,000 per month each to the children under Section 125 Cr.P.C. Justice Garima Prashad, sitting singly at Court No. 46, found that the Family Court had converted a summary maintenance proceeding into a full-fledged matrimonial trial, applied an impermissibly strict standard of proof, and ignored the husband's own admission that he had stopped paying maintenance after November 2020. The revision was reserved on 21 April 2026 and decided on 17 June 2026.

The Dispute Before the High Court

Reenu married Pankaj Kumar on 8 February 2007 according to Hindu rites. Two sons were born from the marriage; their paternity was never disputed by Pankaj Kumar. Reenu alleged that after marriage she was subjected to harassment and cruelty by her husband and his family, that he later informed her he had married another woman named Pragati Yadav, and that on 10 January 2020 she was assaulted and expelled from the matrimonial home along with the children. Since then she and the children have been residing at her parental home. She filed a petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. on 2 February 2021, pleading that she had no independent income and that Pankaj Kumar, a retired Army personnel, received pension and had other sources of income.

Pankaj Kumar admitted the marriage and the birth of the children. His defence was that Reenu had left without sufficient cause and was allegedly maintaining illicit relations with certain persons. He also stated that during his Army service, Rs 11,303 per month was deducted from his salary and paid to the wife and children until his retirement on 30 November 2020, and that after retirement he received a pension of approximately Rs 21,025 per month with no other income. He also relied on an ex parte divorce decree, which the Family Court at Aligarh had subsequently set aside.

The Family Court framed issues on the wife's status, whether she was residing separately without sufficient cause, whether the husband had neglected to maintain the revisionists, and the financial capacity of both parties. It held that Reenu was the legally wedded wife and that the children were legitimate — findings not challenged in revision. However, it rejected Reenu's maintenance claim on the ground that she had failed to prove specific incidents of dowry demand, assault, or the alleged second marriage, and concluded she was residing separately without sufficient cause. It awarded Rs 3,000 per month each to the children from the date of the petition.

The Legal Issue

The central question was whether the Family Court had correctly applied the legal standard governing Section 125 Cr.P.C. proceedings when it required the wife to prove cruelty and matrimonial misconduct to the same standard as in a criminal prosecution or contested matrimonial cause. A connected question was whether Rs 3,000 per month per child was adequate maintenance for school-going children, measured against the principles in Rajnesh v. Neha, (2021) 2 SCC 324.

The revisionists argued that the Family Court had treated the proceedings as a full-fledged matrimonial trial, contrary to the summary and beneficial character of Section 125 Cr.P.C. They also pointed to the husband's own admission that he had not paid any maintenance after November 2020, and to the fact that he had himself initiated divorce proceedings — circumstances the Family Court had failed to weigh properly.

The respondent's counsel supported the impugned judgment, contending that the Family Court had appreciated oral and documentary evidence and that no interference was warranted in revisional jurisdiction. It was also submitted that the quantum awarded was reasonable given the husband's limited pension income.

How the Bench Reasoned

Justice Prashad identified five distinct errors in the Family Court's approach.

The first and most fundamental error was the standard of proof applied. The Court held that in proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C., the enquiry is limited: the court must see whether the wife has a reasonable ground to live separately and whether the husband, despite having means, has neglected or refused to maintain her. The standard is not proof beyond reasonable doubt. The Family Court had disbelieved the wife's case because she could not prove specific incidents of dowry demand, assault, or the second marriage — a standard appropriate to a criminal prosecution, not a maintenance proceeding.

The second error concerned the significance of the husband's own admissions. Pankaj Kumar had admittedly filed a divorce petition, had obtained an ex parte divorce decree (later set aside), and had admitted in cross-examination that he had not paid any maintenance to the wife or children after November 2020. Justice Prashad held that these facts, taken together, were sufficient to show that the wife was not residing separately without cause. Where the husband has initiated divorce proceedings, where the parties are admittedly living separately due to serious matrimonial discord, and where the wife has custody of two minor children, it cannot lightly be concluded that she is living separately without sufficient cause.

The third error related to the earlier Army salary deduction. The Family Court had treated the prior deduction of Rs 11,303 per month from the husband's Army salary as a circumstance against the wife. Justice Prashad reversed this reasoning: the deduction showed that the wife and children required maintenance and that an arrangement had already been made for their sustenance. Once the husband retired and the deduction stopped, his obligation did not end. The Court held that neglect under Section 125 Cr.P.C. may be inferred from conduct, and the husband's admission of non-payment after November 2020 was by itself sufficient to establish neglect.

The fourth error concerned the adultery bar under Section 125(4) Cr.P.C. The Family Court had found that the husband failed to prove the allegations of illicit relationship against the wife. Having recorded that finding, it could not then use those unproved allegations against the wife to deny maintenance. The Court reiterated that the bar under Section 125(4) is attracted only when the wife is proved to be living in adultery; mere allegations or suspicion cannot deprive a wife of maintenance.

The fifth error was the self-contradictory finding on the wife's income. The Family Court itself observed that there was no evidence to prove that Reenu had sufficient means to maintain the children. Having accepted that, there was no justification to deny maintenance to her. The Court also rejected the suggestion that the wife's parents supporting her during distress could substitute for the husband's legal obligation.

On quantum, Justice Prashad applied the principles from Rajnesh v. Neha and the earlier benchmarks in Dr. Kulbhushan Kumar v. Raj Kumari, (1970) 3 SCC 129, and Kalyan Dey Chowdhury v. Rita Dey Chowdhury Nee Nandy, (2017) 14 SCC 200. The Court noted that the 25% of net salary benchmark is not an inflexible formula and must account for the number of dependents, the needs of minor children, and the overall circumstances. The Court found that Rs 3,000 per month per child did not meet even the minimum reasonable expenditure of school-going children, whose needs include food, clothing, education, books, transport, and medical expenses.

On the husband's income, the Court accepted the admitted pension of approximately Rs 21,000 per month as the established figure, while noting that the wife had pleaded agricultural and dairy income. The husband had not produced revenue records or other material to establish that neither he nor his family possessed agricultural land or ancillary sources of income. The Court drew an adverse inference from this withholding of material particulars, though it declined to fix maintenance on the speculative figure of Rs 50,000 per month alleged by the revisionists. It also noted that medical papers regarding anxiety and depressive disorder had been filed but no material established complete incapacity to engage in any supplementary gainful activity.

The Court held that maintenance cannot be merely symbolic and that the amount awarded must allow the claimant to live with dignity.

Directions on Arrears and Default

Justice Prashad directed that maintenance would run from the date of institution of the application, 2 February 2021, consistent with the law in Rajnesh. The arrears accrued from that date until 17 June 2026 are to be calculated after adjusting any amounts already paid under the impugned order or any other proceedings. The remaining arrears are to be paid in twelve equal monthly instalments, along with the monthly maintenance fixed by the High Court.

The Court further provided that in the event of default, the revisionists may move the competent court for enforcement and for deduction and recovery of the maintenance amount from the husband's pension and other lawful receivables. The court concerned was directed to consider and decide such an application expeditiously.

Order

The criminal revision was allowed. The finding of the Family Court, Bulandshahr that Smt. Reenu was residing separately without sufficient cause was set aside. The finding that the opposite party had not neglected to maintain the revisionists was also set aside. Reenu is entitled to maintenance of Rs 5,000 per month. The maintenance for each of the two minor children was enhanced from Rs 3,000 to Rs 4,000 per month. The total maintenance payable is Rs 13,000 per month, payable by the 10th day of each calendar month from 2 February 2021. No order as to costs was made.