The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, presided over by Justice Lakshmi Kant Shukla, has upheld a family court’s order denying maintenance to a wife on the grounds of adultery and self-sufficiency, while raising the monthly support allowance for her minor child. In resolving the criminal revision petition, the court affirmed that under Section 125(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, a wife living in adultery is disqualified from receiving financial support. However, the court ruled that the husband’s earning capacity warranted a higher support amount for the minor child than what was originally granted by the trial court.
Background of the Case
The dispute arose from a judgment and order dated May 6, 2025, passed by the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court No. 3, Bulandshahar, in a maintenance case under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. The trial court had disposed of the application by rejecting the maintenance claim of the wife (Revisionist No. 1) and directing the husband (Opposite Party No. 2) to pay Rs. 3,000 per month to their minor child (Revisionist No. 2).
Dissatisfied with this decision, the revisionists approached the High Court, asserting that the subordinate court failed to properly exercise its jurisdiction, failed to apply its judicial mind, and awarded an inadequate maintenance amount to the minor child while erroneously rejecting the wife’s claim.
Arguments of the Parties
The counsel representing the revisionists argued that the trial court rejected the wife’s claim on two unsustainable grounds: first, that she was a working woman capable of maintaining herself, and second, that she was living in adultery, which under Section 125(4) of the Cr.P.C. disentitles a wife from claiming maintenance. The revisionists contended that these findings were not supported by cogent or reliable evidence and relied entirely on the oral testimony of the husband, which they claimed was false. Regarding the minor child, the counsel argued that the Rs. 3,000 monthly allowance was meager considering the husband’s actual economic status. The husband, who previously worked at a petrol pump, was employed at an ATM company and had leased his vehicle to the company, drawing additional income.
In opposition, the learned Additional Government Advocate (AGA) representing the State defended the trial court’s order, stating it was based on a proper appreciation of evidence. The AGA pointed to the husband’s statement as OPW-1, where he testified to personally witnessing the wife in an objectionable condition with another individual, whose identity and address were disclosed. Because nothing to discredit this testimony was brought out during cross-examination, the trial court was justified in finding his statement trustworthy. The AGA maintained that living in adultery is a valid, sole ground for rejecting a wife’s maintenance claim.
Court’s Analysis and Decision
After hearing the arguments and reviewing the trial record, the High Court found that the family court’s findings regarding the wife were fully supported by the evidence. The court observed:
“The trial court has rightly held that revisionist no. 1 has sufficient means to maintain herself and that she was living in adultery.”
The High Court further stated:
“The said findings are based on proper appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence and do not suffer from any perversity, illegality, or material irregularity warranting interference by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction.”
However, concerning the minor child’s maintenance, the High Court found merit in the revisionists’ plea for enhancement. Acknowledging the husband’s employment with the ATM company and his additional vehicle lease income, the court determined that the Rs. 3,000 monthly allowance was inadequate. The court remarked:
“…so far as the maintenance awarded to revisionist no. 2 is concerned, this Court is of the considered opinion that, having regard to the admitted economical condition and earning capacity of opposite party no. 2, the amount of maintenance fixed by the trial court is inadequate.”
Consequently, the High Court modified the trial court’s order, enhancing the minor child’s monthly maintenance from Rs. 3,000 to Rs. 5,000. The criminal revision was disposed of with this modification.
Case Details: Case Title: P vs State of U.P. and Another
Case No.: CRIMINAL REVISION No. 3487 of 2025
Bench: Justice Lakshmi Kant Shukla
Date: July 8, 2026
