The Allahabad High Court, presided over by Justice Achal Sachdev, has held that a husband’s duty to maintain his wife is not merely a statutory obligation but a profound social and moral responsibility rooted in the conscience of society. The High Court dismissed a criminal revision petition challenging a family court order that directed a husband to pay ₹20,000 per month in maintenance to his wife under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.), holding that the right to maintenance is a statutory right flowing from the marital bond rather than a matter of charity.
Background of the Case
The marriage between the parties was solemnized according to Hindu customs on July 24, 2017, at Village Tughlaqpur, Police Station Knowledge Park, District Gautam Buddh Nagar. According to the wife’s application, her father incurred substantial expenses on the marriage and provided dowry according to his financial capacity.
However, the husband and his family members were dissatisfied and repeatedly demanded additional dowry, specifically a Swift car and a 100-square-yard plot. The wife alleged that she was subjected to continuous harassment, verbal abuse, physical assault, and threats that her husband would remarry and refuse to keep her in the matrimonial home.
On March 30, 2018, the husband and his family members allegedly assaulted her severely and confined her. On April 2, 2018, she managed to inform the police, who brought her to the police station, allegedly compelled her to write an apology, and released her. Since April 2, 2018, she has been residing at her parental home, dependent on her aged and financially weak father. She stated that her husband and his family retained her stridhan, made no effort to inquire about her welfare, and provided no maintenance.
The wife further stated that her husband is a software engineer earning approximately ₹70,000 per month and that his family owns various properties and businesses—including a paint and hardware shop, rental premises, a house, shops, approximately 20 bighas of land, and two vacant plots—generating around ₹2,00,000 per month. Claiming she had no independent source of income, she filed an application seeking ₹30,000 per month as maintenance.
Trial Court Order and High Court Proceedings
On March 30, 2024, the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Gautam Buddh Nagar, in Case No. 63/2019, allowed the wife’s application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. The trial court awarded a sum of ₹20,000 per month from the date of filing of the application (to be paid within three months from the date of judgment) along with ongoing maintenance of ₹20,000 per month from the date of judgment.
Aggrieved by this decision, the husband filed Criminal Revision No. 1366 of 2026 before the Allahabad High Court. When the matter came up for hearing, no counsel appeared on behalf of the revisionist. Consequently, the High Court proceeded with the hearing in the absence of the revisionist’s counsel, listening to learned counsel for the wife and the learned A.G.A. for the State. Counsel for the wife submitted that the revisionist had repeatedly failed to press the revision and had not paid any maintenance despite directions to pay by the 10th of every month.
Court’s Analysis and Key Observations
Upon examining the trial court records, the High Court noted that the trial court had framed five specific issues regarding the marriage, the wife’s reasons for living separately, her inability to support herself, the husband’s financial status, and the effective date for maintenance.
The High Court observed that the trial court correctly concluded that the wife was subjected to cruelty over dowry demands, giving her sufficient reason to live separately, and that she possessed no independent income while the husband possessed sufficient means.
Emphasizing the foundational obligations of marriage, Justice Sachdev observed:
“It is the moral duty and social responsibility of husband to maintain his wife and minor child. The husband’s duty to maintain his wife and minor child is not only a matter of legal obligation, but also social and moral responsibility, and this assumes greater importance where the wife does not have a source of income of her own.”
The Court further elaborated on the social and personal impact of this duty:
“Her husband’s support sustains the family unit, ensuring that the wife and children are not marginalized or forced into poverty, and society views the husband as provider and neglecting this role often leads to social disapproval and stigma.”
“Marriage creates a moral point of care and protection, and the husband is morally obliged to safeguard the dignity and well-being of his wife and provide for minor child. It is fundamental duty rooted in love, compassion and responsibility, and even beyond the law and custom, it is the matter of conscience to prevent suffering of those who are dependent on him.”
Highlighting the legal status of maintenance, the High Court underscored:
“The right to maintenance is not a matter of charity, but a statutory right flowing from marital point and parental duty. The husband being a natural guardian and provider carries a social as well as moral responsibility to ensure that the wife and child are not reduced to penury and maintenance is not a bounty, but a right and its denial would compel the wife to lead a life of destitution which the law cannot countenance.”
“The obligation is rooted not merely in statutory command, but in conscience of society for undermining the neglect of both familial, statutory and social order.”
Precedents and Constitutional Principles
In its reasoning, the High Court referred to the Supreme Court rulings in Bhuvan Mohan Singh Vs. Meena (2015), which emphasized that maintenance is a measure of social justice intended to prevent vagrancy and destitution, and Chaturbhuj Vs. Sitabai (2008), which established that the object of maintenance is to ensure the wife is not left in penury and that maintenance is a right to prevent penury, not conditional upon proof of neglect.
The High Court also grounded the statutory maintenance framework under Section 125 Cr.P.C. / Section 144 BNSS in constitutional guarantees. The Court noted that Directive Principles under Article 39(a) and (f) mandate adequate means of livelihood and healthy development, while Article 21 guarantees the right to life with dignity. Depriving a wife of maintenance forces her into destitution, violating these constitutional assurances along with Article 15(3) and Article 41.
Decision
Finding the family court’s order well-reasoned and justified, the High Court held that no interference was warranted and dismissed the criminal revision petition.
Case Title: Devansh Alias Chhotu v. State of U.P. and Another
Case No.: Criminal Revision No. 1366 of 2026
Bench: Justice Achal Sachdev
Date: August 7, 2026
