The Allahabad High Court refused to cancel maintenance granted to an employed wife, citing “substantial disparity” in income between spouses. The Court ruled that mere employment is not enough to relieve a husband of his statutory liability.
Earning Wife Yet Husband Needs To Pay Maintenance: Justice Madan Pal Singh of the Allahabad High Court dismissed a criminal revision filed by the revisionist, Ravinder Singh Bisht, and upheld the Family Court’s order directing him to pay ₹15,000 per month as maintenance to his legally wedded wife under Section 125 Cr.P.C.
The husband challenged the 04-01-2025 order of the Family Court, Ghaziabad, arguing that his wife was educated, employed, and earning ₹11,28,780 per year as per her Form-16 dated 30-05-2018, and therefore not entitled to maintenance. He also claimed she left the matrimonial home on her own and that he had financial burdens and had quit his job to care for his aged parents.
On the other hand, the wife’s counsel pointed out that the husband had been employed with J.P. Morgan from April 2018 to April 2020 and was earning approximately ₹40 lakhs per annum. It was argued that there was a clear gap between their financial status and that the husband had not disclosed his true income.
After examining the record, Justice Madan Pal Singh clearly observed:
“Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, and the record of the case, including the impugned order, it is an admitted position that opposite party no. 2 is the legally wedded wife of the revisionist.”
The Court found substantial income disparity and stated:
“Even assuming that opposite party no. 2 has some source of income, the material available on record clearly reflects a substantial disparity in the earning capacity and financial status of the parties.”
The Court further rejected the argument that a working wife automatically loses her right to maintenance. The judgment clearly says:
“The Court is unable to accept the submission that mere employment or earning of the wife is, by itself, a ground to deny maintenance. The object of Section 125 Cr.P.C. is not merely to prevent destitution, but to ensure that the wife is able to live with dignity, consistent with the status of the husband.”
Referring to Supreme Court judgments in Shailja v. Khobbanna and Rajnesh v. Neha, the Court reaffirmed the settled legal position. The Judge stated
“The legal position stands settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Shailja v. Khobbanna, (2018) 12 SCC 199, wherein it has been held that mere earning of the wife does not disentitle her from maintenance; the decisive test is whether such income is sufficient to enable her to maintain the same standard of living as enjoyed in the matrimonial home. The said principle has also been reiterated in Rajnesh v. Neha, (2021) 2 SCC 324.”
The High Court upheld the Family Court’s order, observing that the maintenance amount was considered proportionate to the husband’s earning capacity and status. As no legal error or procedural irregularity was found, the Court dismissed the revision and confirmed the maintenance of ₹15,000 per month, leaving the husband bound by the statutory obligation under Section 125 Cr.P.C.
Explanatory Table: Laws And Sections Involved
| Law and Section | Purpose | How Applied in This Case |
| Section 125 Cr.P.C. | Provides financial support to wife, children, or parents who are unable to maintain themselves | The wife sought maintenance under this provision. The Family Court granted ₹15,000 per month, and the High Court upheld it. |
| Sections 397/401 Cr.P.C. (Revisional Jurisdiction) | Empowers High Court to examine legality, correctness, or propriety of lower court orders | The husband filed a criminal revision under this power. The High Court found no illegality or perversity and refused to interfere. |
| Shailja v. Khobbanna (2018) 12 SCC 199 and Rajnesh v. Neha (2021) 2 SCC 324 | Supreme Court rulings clarifying that earning of wife alone does not bar maintenance if income is insufficient to match matrimonial standard of living | The High Court relied on these precedents to hold that income disparity and standard of living are key factors in deciding maintenance. |
Case Details
- Case Title: Ravinder Singh Bisht v. State of U.P. and Another
- Case Number: Criminal Revision No. 1637 of 2025
- Neutral Citation: 2026:AHC:26060
- Court: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- Bench: Hon’ble Justice Madan Pal Singh
- Date of Judgment: 5 February 2026
- Counsels
- For Revisionist: Sri Nitin Sharma, and Sri Parmeshwar Yadav
- For Opposite Party: Sri Ravindra Kumar Mishra, and Learned A.G.A. for the State
Key Takeaways
- Even if the wife is educated and earning, courts may still grant maintenance if there is income disparity between spouses.
- A husband must place strong documentary proof of reduced income or financial hardship; mere statements about liabilities or unemployment may not be accepted.
- Past high earnings, even if not current, can influence the court’s assessment of earning capacity.
- In revision proceedings, High Courts rarely interfere unless there is clear illegality, perversity, or procedural error in the lower court’s order.
- Under Section 125 Cr.P.C., the focus is not only on survival but on maintaining the lifestyle allegedly enjoyed during marriage, which often increases financial pressure on husbands.
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.