The Allahabad High Court set aside a Family Court order denying maintenance to a wife and awarding a very low amount to a minor son. The Court held that salary deductions and assumptions about earning capacity cannot be used to escape legal responsibility.
Allahabad: The Allahabad High Court has reopened a dispute under Section 125 Cr.P.C. after finding serious errors in the Family Court’s approach while denying maintenance to the wife and granting only a minimal amount to the minor child. The case arose from Criminal Revision No. 5971 of 2024 filed by Smt. Suman Verma and her minor son against the State of Uttar Pradesh and the husband. The High Court examined whether the wife was wrongly disqualified from maintenance and whether the calculation of the husband’s income was done in a fair and lawful manner.
The revision challenged the order passed by the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bulandshahr, which had rejected the wife’s maintenance claim and directed the husband to pay only Rs. 3,000 per month to the minor son. The wife sought enhancement of maintenance to Rs. 15,000 per month for herself and Rs. 10,000 per month for the child.
According to the wife, the marriage took place on 20 May 2006 and a son was born, who is now about fifteen years old. She alleged that she was driven out of the matrimonial home due to physical and mental cruelty, and again in January 2020 on dowry demands. She claimed she has no income and depends on her parents, while the husband earns around Rs. 35,000 per month as a Class-IV employee in a primary school.
The husband claimed that the wife had threatened false criminal cases, left the matrimonial home voluntarily in 2007, denied paternity of the child, and alleged that the wife is highly educated, holds an M.A. and ITI diploma, works as a teacher and earns from tuition, making her ineligible for maintenance.
The Family Court rejected the wife’s claim on the ground that she concealed her qualifications but granted Rs. 3,000 per month to the child as the husband failed to disprove paternity.
The High Court examined Section 125(4) Cr.P.C. and held that refusal to return to the matrimonial home during proceedings under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act cannot automatically disqualify a wife from maintenance, relying on Rina Kumari vs. Dinesh Kumar Mahto (2025). The Court also rejected the view that absence of criminal complaints for cruelty or dowry weakens the wife’s case.
The High Court found fault with the Family Court for allowing heavy deductions of loan liabilities while calculating the husband’s net income. The husband’s gross salary was shown as Rs. 48,350 per month, and the Court referred to Rajnesh vs. Neha (2021), indicating that maintenance is generally around 25% of net salary.
The Court made strong observations on the child’s maintenance and the husband’s financial conduct, stating:
“It is also evident that the maintenance amount awarded to the revisionist No.2/minor son of Rs. 3,000/- per month is a meager amount considering that the boy is an adolescent needing support to study well and grow in a healthy environment.”
On the issue of the wife’s qualifications, the Court noted that concealment of education was proved but there was no clear evidence of actual gainful employment. It emphasized:
“It must always be kept in mind that this exercise is not a mere adjudication on a claims for money, but a judicial responsibility that affects the dignity, sustenance and stability of life of the applicant.”
The Court observed:
“When a marital discord arises and parties get separated, then the very sacrifice is often portrayed as a devilish act intended to extract money from the husband. Such sweeping assumptions are not only unfair but deeply insensitive to the social and emotional realities that women face.”
The Court also noted that absence of police complaints does not prove absence of cruelty, while observing that both the wife concealed qualifications and the husband made a false affidavit denying fatherhood.
The High Court held that Rs. 3,000 per month for the adolescent child is extremely low and criticised excessive deductions used to reduce the husband’s income artificially. From a helpless husband’s perspective, this creates serious anxiety due to possible enhancement and prolonged litigation.
Ultimately, the High Court set aside the Family Court order and remanded the matter back to the Family Judge for fresh determination of maintenance within one month. All rights and contentions of the parties have been kept open.
For the husband, the case highlights the growing uncertainty in maintenance litigation, where financial responsibility keeps increasing without clear safeguards on genuine liabilities, real earning capacity assessment and proportional burden-sharing. The remand prolongs uncertainty and reinforces how maintenance litigation can become financially and emotionally exhausting for salaried men already struggling to balance survival, liabilities and legal obligations.
Explanatory table – laws and sections involved
| Law / Section | Purpose | Application in This Case |
| Section 125 Cr.P.C. | Provides maintenance to wife and children to prevent destitution. | Wife and child claimed maintenance; Family Court allowed only child, which HC set aside. |
| Section 125(4) Cr.P.C. | Bars wife from maintenance if living separately without valid reason. | Family Court wrongly applied this bar; HC held refusal to return cannot automatically disqualify wife. |
| Section 9, Hindu Marriage Act | Allows spouse to seek restitution of conjugal rights. | Husband relied on wife’s refusal under Section 9 to deny maintenance; HC rejected this logic. |
| Rajnesh vs. Neha (2021) | Guidelines for fair maintenance calculation. | HC questioned excessive salary deductions based on this principle. |
| Rina Kumari vs. Dinesh Kumar Mahto (2025) | Refusal after restitution decree does not bar maintenance. | HC relied on this to overturn Family Court’s reasoning. |
Case Details
- Case Title: Smt. Suman Verma and Another vs State of U.P. and Another
- Court: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- Case Number: Criminal Revision No. 5971 of 2024
- Bench: Hon’ble Justice Garima Prashad
- Dates:
- Judgment Reserved on: 5 December 2025
- Judgment Pronounced on: 8 January 2026
- Impugned Order: 03.10.2024 (Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bulandshahr)
- Neutral Citation: 2026:AHC:4275
- Counsel for Revisionists: Deepak Kumar Yadav
- Counsel for Opposite Parties: G.A., Shashank Tripathi
Key Takeaways
- Maintenance law is being stretched to presume guilt and capacity against men, while strict scrutiny of allegations and timelines is often missing.
- Loan liabilities and real-life financial burdens of husbands are routinely brushed aside, treating men as endless paycheques rather than human beings.
- Mere qualification of a spouse is rejected as a defence, but the same standard is rarely applied when men claim financial distress or unemployment.
- Denial of fatherhood, though wrong, is highlighted, while years of non-access to child and emotional alienation of fathers remain unaddressed.
- The system focuses on entitlement first and accountability later, leaving men fighting prolonged litigation with little regard to mental, financial, and social damage.
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.