The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad has held that a wife securing a government job constitutes a “change in the circumstances” and is a sufficient ground to limit maintenance arrears to the period prior to her joining the service. Dismissing a criminal revision petition, the court upheld a Family Court order that restricted the husband’s obligation to pay a monthly maintenance of ₹10,000 only up to the date the wife joined as a government school teacher in Bihar.
The single-judge bench of Justice Achal Sachdev ruled that while maintenance is a measure of social justice, the obligation of a husband to provide support ends once the wife secures a stable and reliable source of livelihood, such as a government job with a fixed, verifiable income.
Background of the Case
The revisionist married the opposite party no. 2 on May 22, 2017, according to Hindu rites and rituals. According to the revisionist, the husband and his family demanded a “Swift Desire” car as dowry from the day after her departure, subjecting her to continuous harassment, taunts, abuses, and physical assault.
The revisionist further alleged that her husband maintained an illicit relationship with another woman, expressing his intent to marry her and establish a family. Consequently, the revisionist registered a First Information Report (FIR) against her in-laws, docketed as Case Crime No. 356 of 2019, under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506, and 316 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act at Police Station Kotwali, District Basti.
The revisionist subsequently filed an application for maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) on July 14, 2019, stating that she was an educated, unemployed woman with no source of income and was forced to live a miserable life dependent on her parents.
On March 14, 2024, the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Basti, partially allowed her application in Maintenance Case No. 277 of 2019. The Family Court directed the husband to pay a monthly maintenance of ₹10,000 from the date of the application (July 14, 2019) until February 8, 2024. The maintenance was capped at this date because the wife secured a government teacher’s job in Bihar and joined her services on February 9, 2024. Aggrieved by this limitation, the revisionist preferred a criminal revision before the High Court under Sections 397/401 Cr.P.C. read with Section 96(4) of the Family Court Act.
Arguments of the Parties
Revisionist (Wife)
Learned counsel for the revisionist, Sri Ashwani Kumar Mishra, contended that the revisionist was forced to live a miserable life. It was argued that the husband, employed as a clerk drawing a monthly salary of approximately ₹50,000, spent all his earnings on the same woman.
The revisionist’s counsel argued that the trial court ignored the legal mandate of the Rajasthan High Court in Neha Mathur and Anr. v. Dr. Arvind Kishore (Criminal Misc. Application No. 243/2022), which ruled that a wife remains entitled to receive maintenance from her husband even if she is earning an income, and that a charge of desertion does not disentitle her from seeking support.
Further, relying on the Supreme Court judgment in Chaturbhuj v. Sita Bai (Appeal (Crl.) 1627 of 2007), the counsel argued that a separated wife can claim maintenance even if she has a monthly income, provided it is “not sufficient for her to support herself.”
Opposite Party No. 2 (Husband)
In contrast, Sri Sheetala Prasad Pandey, learned counsel for the husband, submitted that the marriage was solemnized without any dowry. He asserted that on December 14, 2018, the revisionist left the matrimonial home under the false pretext of studying for a competitive exam and returned to her parents’ house, refusing to return despite several mediation attempts.
The husband’s counsel drew attention to the revisionist’s cross-examination, wherein she admitted that after their marriage, all her educational and coaching expenses were borne by the husband. This, he argued, indicated the husband’s sincerity and support. He contended that because the wife has been working as a government teacher in Bihar since February 9, 2024, she earns enough to support herself. Consequently, he argued that the Family Court’s order limiting the maintenance to February 8, 2024, was well-reasoned and required no interference.
Court’s Analysis and Precedents
In analyzing the statutory framework, the High Court observed that the underlying principle of Section 125 Cr.P.C. (now Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita [BNSS]) and Section 18 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act (HAMA) is that the claimant must be “unable to maintain herself.”
The Court held that the wife obtaining a government job constitutes a “change in the circumstances” under Section 127 Cr.P.C. (now Section 146 BNSS) and represents a sufficient ground to modify and limit the maintenance to the period prior to her employment.
Referring to the landmark Supreme Court decision in Rajnesh v. Neha (2021) 2 SCC 324, the court emphasized that while maintenance should generally be awarded from the date of application, courts must balance the standard of living with the actual income and capacity of the spouse:
“if the claimant/spouse began earning a sufficient income/salary during the pendency of the case, the court has discretion to limit the arrears upto that specific date.”
The High Court further relied on the Supreme Court ruling in Captain Ramesh Chander Kaushal v. Mrs. Veena Kaushal (1978) 4 SCC 70, stating:
“…the maintenance is a measure of social justice and the social necessity ends, because the wife has secured a stable and reliable source for her livelihood, the obligation of the husband to provide for her ends since the government job provides a fixed verifiable income under section 127 C.r.P.C. (146 BNSS)…”
Justice Achal Sachdev clarified that a wife securing a job can still claim maintenance only under specific conditions:
“…she can claim maintenance only where the salary from the government job is significantly lower than the husband’s income or insufficient to maintain the previous standard of living and the wife may still argue for supplementary maintenance.”
Decision of the Court
Applying these principles to the facts, the High Court observed that the trial court correctly identified that the revisionist lacked a sufficient source of income from the date of filing her application (July 14, 2019) until February 8, 2024.
Since she was selected for a government job and joined as a teacher on February 9, 2024, the High Court held that she was rightfully entitled to the maintenance of ₹10,000 per month only for the period preceding her employment (from July 14, 2019, to February 8, 2024).
Finding the trial court’s order dated March 14, 2024, to be “well reasoned and justified,” the High Court concluded that it warranted no interference. The criminal revision petition was accordingly dismissed.
Case Details
- Case Title: Smt. Anuradha v. State of U.P. and Another
- Case No.: Criminal Revision No. 2818 of 2024 (2026:AHC:113439)
- Bench: Justice Achal Sachdev
- Date: May 15, 2026
