The Allahabad High Court has ruled that a husband cannot escape his legal responsibility to maintain his wife by pointing to her family’s wealth or her mother’s pension. Rejecting a revision petition filed by a Chartered Accountant, Justice Garima Prashad affirmed a family court order directing him to pay a monthly maintenance of Rs 20,000 to his estranged wife. The Court held that a husband’s legal duty to support his spouse is absolute and remains unaffected by any financial support she might receive from her maternal family.
Background of the Case
The marriage between the parties was solemnized on February 12, 2013, according to Hindu rites and ceremonies. The wife alleged that she was subjected to continuous physical and mental cruelty due to demands for money to purchase a flat, prompting her to live separately. She stated that her widowed mother, a retired Headmistress, had spent substantial amounts on the wedding and even provided Rs 5.5 lakhs during the flat transaction.
Additionally, the wife sustained several physical injuries while living with her husband, which he failed to explain consistently. After she was left at her parental home in December 2016, the husband instituted divorce proceedings and made no genuine efforts to bring her back.
On August 14, 2024, the Principal Judge, Family Court, Mainpuri, partly allowed the wife’s application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) and directed the husband to pay monthly maintenance of Rs 20,000 starting from the date of the application (June 17, 2017). The husband challenged this order before the High Court.
Arguments of the Parties
The husband, a qualified Chartered Accountant, argued that his wife is highly educated, holding M.Sc. and B.Ed. degrees, and is capable of maintaining herself through tuition and coaching work. He also contended that she had access to her mother’s pension and family properties, which had been sold for significant amounts. Regarding his own income, the husband claimed he was currently a freelancer with irregular earnings following the liquidation of his former employer, Jaypee Group, and was burdened with supporting his aged parents.
Conversely, the wife’s counsel argued that she was forced to reside separately due to cruelty and neglect. It was submitted that the husband is an active Chartered Accountant who has worked in several cities, maintains a high standard of living, and has deliberately withheld his income tax returns and financial accounts from the court to conceal his true earnings.
Court’s Analysis
The High Court observed that the family court was correct in finding that the wife had sufficient reasons to live separately. The Court noted that continuous pressure to arrange money, combined with contradictory explanations from the husband regarding the wife’s injuries, clearly amounted to cruelty. The husband’s subsequent divorce filing, his refusal to cohabitate during mediation, and his unsubstantiated allegations regarding his wife’s character and mental health further justified her separation.
Addressing the husband’s contention regarding the wife’s maternal family wealth, the Court held:
“The legal obligation to maintain the wife is that of the husband. The pension of the mother or properties allegedly belonging to the mother cannot be treated as the independent income of the wife.”
The Court also rejected the argument that the wife’s educational qualification alone is sufficient to deny her financial support:
“Education and earning capacity are relevant considerations, but they cannot be equated with actual and sufficient income. In proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C., the test is whether the wife is able to maintain herself in the manner contemplated by law. A wife cannot be denied maintenance merely because she is qualified, when there is no evidence that she is actually earning sufficient income.”
The High Court drew an adverse inference against the husband for failing to produce his tax returns, bank statements, or account books, especially since he is a professional Chartered Accountant with specialized knowledge of financial records. Pointing to his lifestyle—which included owning a Honda City car and taking his wife on air travel to destinations like Goa, Delhi, and Udaipur—the Court noted that he clearly maintained a standard of living above ordinary means.
Applying the principles established by the Supreme Court in Rajnesh v. Neha and others; (2021) 2 SCC 324, the Court determined that the maintenance amount should align with the status of the parties and the lifestyle enjoyed by the wife in her matrimonial home.
The Decision
The High Court concluded that the family court’s order did not suffer from any patent illegality, jurisdictional error, or perversity. The Court dismissed the criminal revision petition and affirmed the order directing the husband to pay maintenance of Rs 20,000 per month from the date of the application (June 17, 2017). The Court also ruled that any amount already paid by the husband toward interim maintenance shall be adjusted against the final arrears.
Case Details
Case Title: Alok Tiwari Versus State of U.P. and another
Case No.: CRIMINAL REVISION No. 5768 of 2024
Bench: Justice Garima Prashad
Date: June 17, 2026
