The Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) has dismissed a criminal revision petition filed by a husband challenging a Family Court order that directed him to pay Rs. 2,500 per month as interim maintenance to his estranged wife. The Court reiterated that an able-bodied husband cannot avoid his legal obligation to maintain his wife by pleading unemployment.
The Allahabad High Court has upheld the order of the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Lucknow, awarding Rs. 2,500 per month to the wife as interim maintenance. The Court observed that the amount awarded was “meagre” and found no illegality in the Family Court’s decision to assess the husband’s income on the basis of minimum wages, rejecting the husband’s plea to refer the matter to mediation on a deposit of Rs. 25,000.
Background of the Case
The revisionist (the husband) challenged the order dated August 20, 2025, passed by the Family Court in the maintenance case. The wife had filed an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) claiming maintenance.
According to the wife’s application, the parties were married on November 28, 2013, in Jalandhar, Punjab. She alleged that shortly after the marriage, her husband and in-laws began harassing her for dowry. She specifically cited an incident on February 2, 2021, where she was allegedly assaulted by her sister-in-law and other family members. Following this, she claimed her husband abandoned her in a rented room for 20 days before her brother brought her back to Lucknow on February 21, 2021.
The wife asserted that she had no source of income, while her husband earned approximately Rs. 60,000 per month from a fruit business and an additional Rs. 40,000 from rental properties, totaling an income of roughly Rs. 1 Lakh per month. She sought Rs. 50,000 per month as interim maintenance.
Arguments of the Parties
The revisionist (husband) contested the claim, arguing that the wife was a skilled tailor and embroiderer earning sufficient income in Lucknow. He claimed to be unemployed, stating that he previously worked as a driver and that his fruit business had closed down. He asserted he had no source of income and requested the dismissal of the maintenance application.
In the High Court, the counsel for the revisionist could not point out any specific illegality in the Family Court’s order but proposed referring the matter to the Mediation and Conciliation Centre. The counsel offered to deposit Rs. 25,000 for mediation.
Family Court’s Observations
The Family Court, in its order dated August 20, 2025, noted that neither party had produced documentary evidence regarding their respective incomes. The Court observed that since the charges were yet to be established through evidence, it had to rely on a reasonable assessment.
Reasoning that the husband is an able-bodied man, the Family Court presumed that even if he worked as a laborer, he would earn at least the minimum wage. The Court calculated:
“If a laborer works for 25 days in a month, he surely earns (500 x 25 = 12,500/-) rupees.”
Based on this assessment of a notional income of Rs. 12,500 per month, the Family Court ordered the husband to pay Rs. 2,500 per month to the wife from the date of the application.
High Court’s Analysis
Justice Saurabh Lavania examined the legal principles governing Section 125 Cr.P.C., referring to several Supreme Court judgments, including Anju Garg and another vs. Deepak Kumar Garg (2022) and Chaturbhuj v. Sita Bai (2008).
The Court emphasized the social justice aspect of the provision, quoting from Anju Garg:
“The Family Court had disregarded the basic canon of law that it is the sacrosanct duty of the husband to provide financial support to the wife and to the minor children. The husband is required to earn money even by physical labour, if he is an able-bodied, and could not avoid his obligation, except on the legally permissible grounds mentioned in the statute.”
The Court also referred to the Supreme Court’s decision in Kulbhushan Kumar Vs. Raj Kumari (1970) and Kalyan Dey Chaudhary Vs. Rita Dey Chaudhary Nee Nandy (2017), which established that “25% of net income of the husband should be paid to the wife as maintenance.”
Addressing the revisionist’s request for mediation, the High Court rejected the offer to deposit Rs. 25,000. The Court noted that the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was filed in October 2021, and the arrears would amount to approximately Rs. 1,20,000. Therefore, the offer was deemed unreasonable.
Decision
The High Court found no irregularity in the Family Court’s order. Justice Lavania observed:
“Upon due consideration of the aforesaid, this Court finds no illegality, irregularity, or jurisdictional error in the order impugned dated 20.08.2025 for the reason that a meagre amount i.e. Rs. 2500/- per month has been awarded by the Family Court to the opposite party No. 2 towards the amount of maintenance.”
Consequently, the Criminal Revision was dismissed.
