The Allahabad High Court has observed that an able-bodied husband, working as a skilled labourer, is presumed to earn at least Rs. 800 per day, translating to a monthly income of Rs. 24,000. Applying the principle that maintenance should constitute 25% of the husband’s net income, the Court enhanced the maintenance allowance awarded to a wife and her minor daughter.
The Single Judge Bench of Justice Madan Pal Singh allowed the criminal revision petition filed by a wife and her daughter, seeking an enhancement of the maintenance awarded by the Family Court, Mathura. The High Court modified the lower court’s order, increasing the total monthly maintenance from Rs. 5,000 to Rs. 6,000, holding that the original amount was “too meagre” given the husband’s assessed income as a skilled labourer.
Background of the Case
The revisionists (wife and minor daughter) had approached the High Court challenging the ex parte judgment and order dated May 22, 2024, passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Mathura, in Case No. 345 of 2022 under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C.
The Family Court had directed the husband to pay Rs. 4,000 per month to the wife and Rs. 1,000 per month to the daughter. The revisionists contended that this amount was insufficient due to current inflation and the cost of living.
Arguments of the Parties
The counsel for the revisionists argued that the husband (Opposite Party No. 2) runs an auto workshop and spare parts shop named “Raheesh Auto Service Centre and Spare Parts.” It was submitted that his monthly income exceeds Rs. 50,000. To substantiate this claim, photographs of the workshop were placed on record.
Opposing the plea, the learned Additional Government Advocate (A.G.A.) for the State argued that while the husband is a skilled labourer running an auto workshop, his income is not permanent. The State contended that the trial court had committed no illegality in awarding Rs. 5,000 per month and that no interference was warranted.
Court’s Analysis and Observations
The High Court noted that no documentary evidence regarding the husband’s exact income was adduced before the trial court. While photographs of the workshop were submitted, the Court observed that the exact monthly income could not be discerned from them.
However, the Court took note of the admitted position that the husband “is a skilled labourer and also runs an Auto Workshop” and is an able-bodied person.
Referring to the landmark Supreme Court judgment in Rajnesh Vs. Neha (2021) 2 SCC 324, the Court reiterated that it is the “sacrosanct duty of the husband to provide financial support to the wife” and that an able-bodied husband cannot avoid this obligation and is required to earn money even by physical labour.
In assessing the husband’s income, the Court observed:
“In that circumstance, at the present time, in the opinion of the Court, if the revisionist, who is an able bodied person, is treated as a skilled labourer at present, he would earn Rs. 800/- per day and his monthly income would be Rs. 24,000/- per month.”
The Court further relied on the Supreme Court’s decisions in Rajnesh Vs. Neha and Kulbhushan Kumar (Dr) v. Raj Kumari (1970) 3 SCC 129, which held that maintenance allowances can be granted up to the extent of 25% of the net income of the husband.
Calculating the maintenance based on the assessed income, the Court stated:
“25% of Rs. 24,000/- would be Rs. 6,000/- and in that circumstance, the total amount of maintenance allowance fixed by the trial court at Rs. 5,000/- in favour of revisionists is too meagre amount and the same deserves to be enhanced.”
Decision
The High Court partly allowed the criminal revision and modified the Family Court’s order.
- Wife: Award maintained at Rs. 4,000 per month.
- Daughter: Award enhanced from Rs. 1,000 to Rs. 2,000 per month.
- Total: Rs. 6,000 per month from the date of filing the application.
The Court directed the husband to pay the arrears in 10 equal monthly installments, commencing from February 5, 2026. The Court also granted liberty to the revisionists to file an application under Section 127 Cr.P.C. for further enhancement should the financial condition of the husband change.
Case Details:
- Case Title: Smt. Sapna And Another Versus State of U.P. and Another
- Case Number: Criminal Revision No. 7216 of 2025
- Court: Allahabad High Court
- Coram: Justice Madan Pal Singh
- Counsel for Revisionists: Mohd Adnan Khan, Mohd. Imran, Syed Safdar Ali Kazmi
- Counsel for Opposite Party: Alok Kumar Srivastava (G.A.), Yogesh Kumar
