Can a retired Army man avoid proper maintenance by saying he has only pension income? Allahabad High Court said wife and two minor children cannot be left with symbolic maintenance when the husband has a legal duty to support them.
PRAYAGRAJ: The Allahabad High Court has allowed a criminal revision filed by a wife and her two minor children against a Family Court order which had denied maintenance to the wife and granted only Rs.3,000 per month each to the children.
The case was filed by Smt. Reenu and her two minor children against Pankaj Kumar. The wife challenged the order dated 14.12.2023 passed by the Family Court, Bulandshahr in proceedings under Section 125 CrPC.
The wife and children argued that the Family Court had taken a wrong approach. According to them, Section 125 CrPC proceedings are summary in nature and are meant to prevent destitution. They said the Family Court treated the matter like a full matrimonial trial on cruelty and adultery, instead of deciding whether the wife and children needed maintenance.
The husband opposed the revision. He said the wife had not proved cruelty, dowry demand, assault or his alleged second marriage. He also said he had earlier paid maintenance through deductions from his Army salary and, after retirement, he was living mainly on pension.
Justice Garima Prashad noted that the marriage between the parties was admitted. The two children were also admitted to be born from the marriage. The husband had never denied their paternity. It was also admitted that the wife and children were living separately and the husband was a retired Army personnel receiving pension.
The High Court found fault with the Family Court’s reasoning. The Court said that in Section 125 CrPC proceedings, strict proof of cruelty is not required like in a criminal trial or a contested matrimonial case. The Court only has to see whether the wife has a reasonable ground to live separately and whether the husband has neglected or refused to maintain her despite having means.
The High Court noted that there was serious matrimonial dispute between the parties. The husband had filed a divorce petition and had also obtained an ex parte divorce decree, which was later set aside. The wife and children were admittedly living separately. The husband himself admitted that after November 2020 he had not paid maintenance to the wife and children.
The Court held that these facts were enough to show that the wife was not living separately without reason. The Family Court had wrongly placed a heavy burden on the wife and failed to apply the beneficial object of Section 125 CrPC.
The Court also rejected the husband’s allegations of adultery against the wife. It noted that no independent witness, document or reliable material was produced to prove that the wife was living in adultery. The Court said mere allegations, suspicion or character assassination cannot take away a wife’s right to maintenance.
The High Court further said that even if the wife could not strictly prove the allegation of second marriage against the husband, that alone could not mean that she had no reason to live separately. The Family Court wrongly treated failure to prove one allegation as failure of the entire case.
On the wife’s income, the Court found that the husband had not produced reliable evidence to show that she had sufficient independent income. The Court said the income of the wife’s father cannot be treated as the wife’s income. A wife cannot be denied maintenance only because her parents are supporting her in distress.
The High Court also held that the earlier deduction of maintenance from the husband’s Army salary did not go against the wife. Instead, it supported the case of the wife and children because it showed that they required maintenance. After retirement, the husband’s legal duty to maintain them did not end.
The Court observed that the husband was receiving pension of about Rs.21,000 per month. The wife had also claimed that he had agricultural and dairy income, though exact proof was not available. The Court said the husband had not disclosed complete details about agricultural holdings, family income or other assets. Since the husband had better knowledge of his own financial affairs, adverse inference could be drawn against him for withholding material details.
The Court also said that a retired Army man who is able-bodied cannot avoid his legal duty towards his wife and children merely by reducing or hiding his income.
The High Court referred to the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Rajnesh v. Neha and said maintenance must be realistic. It must consider the status of the parties, needs of the wife and children, income of the husband, liabilities and the purpose of preventing destitution. Maintenance cannot be only symbolic.
The Court found that Rs.3,000 per month for each child was clearly too low. The children were school-going and needed money for food, clothes, education, books, transport, medical needs and daily expenses. The Family Court had not properly considered these real expenses.
Finally, the High Court set aside the Family Court’s finding that the wife was living separately without sufficient cause. It also set aside the finding that the husband had not neglected the wife.
The High Court awarded Rs.5,000 per month to the wife and Rs.4,000 per month each to the two minor children. The total maintenance was fixed at Rs.13,000 per month.
The Court directed that the maintenance would be payable from the date of filing of the application under Section 125 CrPC, i.e. 02.02.2021. The monthly maintenance has to be paid by the 10th day of every calendar month.
The arrears from 02.02.2021 till the judgment date will be calculated after adjusting any amount already paid. The remaining arrears will be paid in twelve equal monthly installments along with the monthly maintenance.
The Court also made it clear that if the husband defaults, the wife and children may approach the competent court for enforcement of the order, including recovery from the husband’s pension and other lawful receivables.
This judgment shows a harsh ground reality: after years of litigation, a man’s pension and income can still be reopened, assessed and directed towards arrears and monthly liability, while the system often takes years to decide what should have been a basic survival issue for all sides.
EXPLANATORY TABLE: LAWS, SECTIONS AND LEGAL PRINCIPLES MENTIONED
| LAW / CASE / PROVISION | WHAT IT MEANS | HOW IT WAS USED IN THIS CASE |
| Section 125 CrPC | A summary remedy for maintenance to wife, children and parents who are unable to maintain themselves. Its purpose is to prevent destitution and provide basic financial support. | The wife and two minor children filed the maintenance case under this provision. The High Court held that Family Court wrongly treated it like a full matrimonial trial instead of a summary maintenance proceeding. |
| Section 125(4) CrPC | This provision can bar a wife from getting maintenance if she is living in adultery, refuses to live with her husband without sufficient reason, or lives separately by mutual consent. | The husband alleged illicit relations against the wife, but the High Court held that adultery was not proved. Mere suspicion or character assassination could not be used to deny maintenance. |
| Criminal Revision | A revisional remedy where the High Court examines legality, correctness or propriety of a lower court order. | The wife and children challenged the Family Court’s order before the Allahabad High Court through criminal revision. |
| Rajnesh v. Neha, (2021) 2 SCC 324 | Supreme Court judgment laying down important guidelines for maintenance, including realistic assessment of income, needs, status, liabilities and date from which maintenance should be granted. | The High Court relied on this principle to say maintenance must be realistic and cannot be symbolic. It also supported grant of maintenance from the date of application. |
| Dr. Kulbhushan Kumar v. Raj Kumari, (1970) 3 SCC 129 | Supreme Court held that maintenance should match the husband’s income and financial capacity. | The High Court cited this while considering how much maintenance should be fixed. |
| Kalyan Dey Chowdhury v. Rita Dey Chowdhury Nee Nandy, (2017) 14 SCC 200 | Supreme Court observed that ordinarily 25% of the husband’s net salary may be a reasonable benchmark for maintenance to wife, depending on facts. | The High Court referred to this case but clarified that 25% is not a fixed mathematical formula. Children’s needs and overall circumstances must also be considered. |
| Ex parte divorce decree | A divorce decree passed in absence of one party. | Husband had relied on an ex parte divorce decree, but the High Court noted that it was later set aside by the Family Court at Aligarh. Therefore, the wife’s status as legally wedded wife remained relevant. |
| Adverse inference | When a party withholds important evidence that is within his knowledge, the court may draw an inference against that party. | The High Court said the husband did not disclose full details of agricultural holdings, other income or family assets. Since he had best knowledge of his finances, adverse inference could be drawn. |
| Recovery from pension / lawful receivables | Maintenance orders can be enforced through lawful recovery mechanisms if there is default. | The High Court allowed the wife and children to seek enforcement, including deduction and recovery from the husband’s pension and other lawful receivables, if he defaults. |
CASE DETAILS
| DETAIL | EXTRACTED INFORMATION |
| Court | High Court of Judicature at Allahabad |
| Case Number | Criminal Revision No. 1370 of 2024 |
| Case Title | Smt. Reenu and 2 others Versus State of UP and another |
| Revisionists | Smt. Reenu and her two minor children, Kanha Singh and Vansh Chaudhary |
| Opposite Parties | State of UP and another |
| Court No. | 46 |
| Bench | Hon’ble Garima Prashad, J. |
| Reserved On | 21.04.2026 |
| Delivered On | 17.06.2026 |
| Neutral Citation | 2026:AHC:127674 |
| Counsel for Revisionists | Dhirendra Kumar Agrahari |
| Counsel for Opposite Parties | Ambleshwar Pandey, Anuj Srivastava, G.A. |
| Counsel Appearance Noted in Hearing | Sri Dhirendra Kumar Agrahari for revisionists; Ms. Javeriya Kazmi holding brief of Sri Ambleshwar Pandey for respondent no.2; learned A.G.A. for State |
KEY TAKEAWAYS
- A man’s retirement does not end his maintenance burden.
Even after Army retirement, the Court held that the husband’s legal duty towards wife and minor children continued. - Pension can be targeted for recovery.
The Court clearly allowed enforcement from pension and other lawful receivables if default happens. This is a serious warning for retired men. - Limited income argument may not save the husband.
Though the husband claimed pension of around Rs.21,000, the Court still fixed total maintenance at Rs.13,000 per month. - Unproved adultery allegations did not help the man.
The Court said mere allegations, suspicion or character assassination cannot deprive a wife of maintenance. - Men must keep full financial records ready.
The Court drew adverse inference because the husband did not fully disclose details of agricultural holdings, other income or family assets. In maintenance cases, weak documentation can become a man’s biggest legal trap.
This Could Change Your Case-Get FREE Legal Advice-Click Here!
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the Indian courts and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of “ShoneeKapoor.com” or its affiliates. This article is intended for informational and educational purposes only. The content provided is not legal advice, and viewers should not act upon this information without seeking professional counsel. Viewer discretion is advised.
