The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad has partially allowed a criminal revision, reducing the maintenance amount previously awarded to a wife and child. Justice Madan Pal Singh ruled that while it is a husband’s legal obligation to maintain his family, the amount must be “reasonable and proportionate” to his income.
The case, Sarfaraj vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others (CRIMINAL REVISION No. 1116 of 2025), centered on whether the maintenance amount of ₹11,000 per month awarded by the Family Court was excessive relative to the husband’s financial capacity. The High Court assessed the revisionist’s income at ₹30,000 per month and, following Supreme Court guidelines, reduced the total maintenance to ₹7,500 per month.
Background of the Case
The revisionist, Sarfaraj, filed the petition seeking to set aside an order dated January 24, 2025, passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Agra. In Maintenance Case No. 617 of 2019, filed under Section 125 Cr.P.C., the trial court had directed him to pay ₹7,000 per month to his wife (Opposite Party No. 2) and ₹4,000 per month to his child (Opposite Party No. 3).
Arguments of the Parties
For the Revisionist: Counsel Sri Jai Raj argued that the revisionist works as a laborer in a shop owned by his brother, earning only ₹8,000 to ₹9,000 per month. He contended that the revisionist has no regular source of income and has other liabilities to discharge. The defense claimed the trial court’s award violated established legal precedents, specifically citing:
- Rajnesh vs. Neha and Another (2021) 2 SCC 324
- Kalyan Dey Chowdhury vs. Rita Dey Chowdhury Nee Nandy AIR 2017 SC 2383
- Kulbhushan Kumar vs. Raj Kumari (1970) 3 SCC 129
For the Opposite Parties: Counsel Sri Vinod Chandra Yadav and the learned A.G.A. for the State opposed the prayer. They contended that, considering the present inflation, the ₹11,000 award was not excessive or beyond the capacity of the revisionist. They further submitted that the revision lacked merit and was liable to be dismissed.
Court’s Analysis
The Court noted that the marriage was an admitted fact. Regarding the income of the revisionist, the Court observed that while he claimed to be working as an assistant in his brother’s shop (formerly his father’s), there was no documentary evidence of his exact earnings.
Consequently, the Court made a reasonable assessment:
“In the absence of reliable proof, his income is assessed at Rs.1,000/- per day which comes to Rs. 30,000/- per month from all sources.”
Referencing the Supreme Court’s observations that maintenance may be granted up to the extent of 25% of the husband’s net income, the Court calculated that 25% of ₹30,000 amounts to ₹7,500.
The Court held:
“It is true that it is the legal obligation of a husband to maintain his wife and child; however, the amount of maintenance must be reasonable and proportionate to his income. Therefore, the maintenance awarded by the court below appears to be excessive and deserves to be modified.”
The Decision
The High Court reduced the total maintenance from ₹11,000 to ₹7,500 per month. The modified distribution is as follows:
- ₹4,000 per month to the wife (Opposite Party No. 2).
- ₹3,500 per month to the child (Opposite Party No. 3).
The revised amount is payable from the date of the application. The Court also directed that if the revisionist has already paid any amount, the same shall be duly adjusted. Arrears are to be cleared in twenty equal monthly installments, with the first installment due on or before April 10, 2026.
Case Details
- Case Title: Sarfaraj vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others
- Case Number: CRIMINAL REVISION No. 1116 of 2025
- Bench: Justice Madan Pal Singh
- Date: March 17, 2026
