Observing that Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) is designed to ensure sustenance and dignity rather than confer an unmerited financial advantage, the Allahabad High Court, presided over by Justice Lakshmi Kant Shukla, has held that the authorized or paid-up share capital of a company cannot give rise to a presumption that it generates sufficient income to pay a substantial salary to its co-founder. Upholding a trial court order fixing a husband’s maintenance obligation at Rs. 15,000 per month, the High Court dismissed the cross-revisions preferred by both spouses.
Background of the Case
The matter originated from a judgment and order dated November 4, 2024, passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Jaunpur, in Case No. 162 of 2022. The Family Court allowed the wife’s application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and directed the husband to pay her maintenance of Rs. 15,000 per month from the date of the application’s institution.
Both parties challenged the trial court’s ruling before the High Court. The husband filed Criminal Revision No. 542 of 2025 seeking to set aside the maintenance order, while the wife filed connected Criminal Revision No. 6290 of 2024 seeking an enhancement of the maintenance amount. Because both revisions arose out of the same order, the High Court heard and disposed of them together through a common judgment.
Arguments of the Parties
The husband challenged the order primarily on the ground that his wife was residing separately without any sufficient reason. He contended that she is a well-educated woman holding a B.Ed. degree who was employed as a teacher at Mount Litera Zee School, Ghaziabad. Relying on an employee list and salary slips for August, September, and October 2021 showing a monthly income of Rs. 45,000, his counsel argued that she was fully capable of maintaining herself and was disentitled to maintenance.
In reply, counsel for the wife submitted that the salary slips pertained to a brief past period in 2021 and that no evidence established she continued earning that income later. It was highlighted that the maintenance petition was instituted in 2022 when she was no longer employed as a teacher, and the husband’s own records indicated she was residing at her parental home in Jaunpur rather than Ghaziabad.
In her revision seeking an enhancement, the wife argued that the trial court erroneously assessed the husband’s income. She submitted that the husband holds a B.Tech degree, is the co-founder and Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of InnoApps Technologies Private Limited, and earns approximately Rs. 4,00,000 per month. Pointing to corporate records showing the company had an authorized share capital of Rs. 50,00,000 and a paid-up share capital of Rs. 20,00,000, her counsel argued that the trial court erred in accepting his version that he received a monthly salary of merely Rs. 50,000 as Global Head.
Court’s Analysis and Observations
Upon reviewing the record, the High Court noted that while the wife established the husband is a co-founder of the company, the salary slip placed on record confirmed his monthly salary as Rs. 50,000. The Court rejected the contention that the company’s capital structure supported an inference of higher personal income, observing:
“Merely because the authorised share capital of the aforesaid company is shown to be Rs. 50,00,000/- and its paid-up share capital, as reflected in the balance sheet, is Rs. 20,00,000/-, no presumption can be drawn that the company is generating such substantial income as would enable it to pay a monthly salary of Rs. 4,00,000/- to one of its employees. In the absence of any cogent and reliable material establishing such income, the assertion of the wife-revisionist that the husband-revisionist earns Rs. 4,00,000/- per month cannot be accepted merely on the basis of the authorised or paid-up share capital of the company.”
Finding no ground to interfere with the trial court’s assessment of the husband’s monthly income at Rs. 50,000, the Court adverted to the Supreme Court’s decision in Kalyan Dey Chowdhury v. Rita Dey Chowdhury Nee Nandy, (2017) 14 SCC 200, which observed that 25% of the husband’s net income may serve as a guiding benchmark. The High Court held that the awarded sum of Rs. 15,000 per month was already substantially higher than 25% of his Rs. 50,000 income, precluding any further enhancement.
Emphasizing the true legislative intent of Section 125 Cr.P.C., the Court observed:
“The object of Section 125 Cr.P.C. is to prevent destitution and vagrancy and to ensure that a wife, child or parent who is unable to maintain himself or herself is not left without the basic means of subsistence. The provision is essentially a measure of social justice intended to provide a reasonable and dignified means of support to the person entitled to maintenance. At the same time, the provision is not intended to confer an unmerited financial advantage or to serve as a source of enrichment for the person claiming maintenance. The amount of maintenance must, therefore, be determined having regard to the needs of the claimant, the income and financial capacity of the person liable to pay, the standard of living of the parties and the other relevant circumstances of the case, so as to strike a fair balance between the legitimate needs of the claimant and the corresponding financial capacity of the person liable to maintain. Section 125 Cr.P.C. is a measure for securing sustenance and dignity and not a means of creating a bonanza or windfall in favour of the claimant.”
Decision
Holding that the trial court’s order dated November 4, 2024, did not suffer from any illegality, the High Court found no merit in either the husband’s challenge or the wife’s plea for enhancement. Accordingly, both criminal revisions were dismissed.
Case Title: Ankit Singh v. State of U.P. and another
Case No.: Criminal Revision No. 542 of 2025
Bench: Justice Lakshmi Kant Shukla
