Wife Entitled for Maintenance<\/em>: In a judgment that raises serious concerns for financially weak men, the Allahabad High Court has dismissed a criminal revision filed by a daily wage labourer who challenged repeated increases in maintenance awarded to his wife<\/strong>. The case arose from Criminal Revision, filed by revisionist against an order passed by the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Shahjahanpur<\/strong>, which enhanced the wife\u2019s maintenance from Rs. 500 per month to Rs. 3,000 per month under Section 127 Cr.P.C<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The husband challenged this order in the High Court, arguing that the increase was excessive and beyond his earning capacity. The High Court dismissed his petition and upheld the Family Court\u2019s decision.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The husband informed the court that he was a labourer barely able to earn his livelihood and that the maintenance<\/a> amount had already been enhanced multiple times over the years. He pointed out that the family court had increased the maintenance for the sixth time, without realistically assessing his actual earning capacity or daily survival expenses. Despite this plea, the State opposed the revision and argued that considering current inflation, the enhanced amount could not be termed excessive.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The bench said that a husband has both a legal and moral responsibility to look after his wife if she cannot financially support herself.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cThe court remarked that the petitioner husband has a sacred and legal duty to provide for his wife,\u201d <\/em><\/strong>the court said in its order.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n After examining the record, the High Court noted that the wife is the legally wedded wife of the revisionist and has no independent source of income. The Court clearly observed,<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cIt is the pious and legal duty of the revisionist to maintain his wife, who is unable to maintain herself.\u201d<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n The Court further held that since there was nothing on record to show that the wife was earning, \u201cit may be presumed that she is not in a position to maintain herself.\u201d<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Rejecting the husband\u2019s attempt to escape liability, the Court stated that the husband had not claimed any physical disability and therefore must be treated as capable of earning. The Court categorically held,<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cSince the revisionist has not claimed any physical deformity, this Court presumes that the revisionist\/husband is an able-bodied person and, therefore, he cannot shirk from his pious liability to maintain his wife.\u201d<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n While assessing the husband\u2019s earning capacity, the Court assumed that even if he is a labourer, he can earn around Rs. 600 per day, which comes to approximately Rs. 18,000 per month. On this basis, the Court referred to binding Supreme Court judgments including Rajnesh Versus Neha and Another (2021) 2 SCC 324, Kalyan Dey Chowdhury vs. Rita Dey Chowdhury Nee Nandy, AIR 2017 SC 2383, and Kulbhushan Kumar Vs. Raj Kumari (1970) 3 SCC 129.<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Relying on these decisions, the High Court reiterated the settled principle that<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cThe maintenance allowances can be granted to the extent of 25% of the net income of the husband.\u201d<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n The Court calculated that 25% of the assumed income would come to around Rs. 4,500 per month and noted that the Family Court had awarded only Rs. 3,000 per month, which was already on the lower side.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In its reasoning, the High Court referred to established legal principles and earlier precedents about maintenance law. While considering what could be \u201cjust and proper,\u201d the court observed that even if the husband worked as a labourer earning a modest daily wage, a maintenance amount up to 25 per cent of his income would be reasonable in certain circumstances.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Ultimately, the High Court concluded that the family court order did not suffer from any illegality or infirmity and dismissed the revision as devoid of merit. For men living hand-to-mouth, this judgment reinforces a harsh reality: poverty, unstable income, and repeated financial distress are not considered sufficient grounds to resist escalating maintenance orders. The ruling highlights how economically vulnerable husbands are left with shrinking means of survival while legal presumptions continue to work decisively against them.<\/p>\n\n\n\n This ruling is significant for family courts and litigants because it gives a clear benchmark on how maintenance might be calculated when a woman cannot maintain herself. It reminds husbands that the law expects them to support their wives within their financial capacity.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Overall, the decision reinforces that maintenance under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code<\/a><\/strong> is meant to prevent destitution and protect financially vulnerable spouses, rather than punish the husband. The judgment will likely influence similar cases in other courts where the question of how much maintenance to award is contested.<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n
\n
\n
\n
Explanatory Table: Laws & Sections Involved<\/h3>\n\n\n\n