In a recent judgment, the Allahabad High Court chastised a Principal Family Court Judge for failing to maintain fairness in a maintenance case involving a judge’s wife. Justice Vinod Diwakar highlighted the oversight of the Family Court in accurately assessing the salary of the husband, who is a judicial officer, describing it as a serious lapse in judgment.
The issue arose from a revision plea filed by the officer’s wife seeking an increase in the maintenance previously awarded. The High Court found the Family Court’s evaluation of the husband’s income particularly troubling, noting that the court assumed his salary was on par with an entry-level district judge without proper verification.
“The salary structure for High Judicial Service Officers in Uttar Pradesh is well-documented, yet the Presiding Judge of the Family Court in Sonbhadra chose to overlook this critical information, leading to a misjudgment in calculating the husband’s financial obligations,” Justice Diwakar remarked. He urged the Family Court judge to reflect on his methods and understanding of such matters.
The couple, who married in 2002 and have four children, have been embroiled in legal battles after the wife was allegedly expelled from their home in 2013 following disputes over dowry demands. Despite the initial maintenance set at ₹20,000 by the Family Court in 2023, the wife claimed this amount did not reflect her husband’s actual financial standing or meet her needs, prompting her to seek judicial review.
Justice Diwakar expressed concern over the husband’s approach, noting his attempts to delay proceedings and his failure to comply with previous court orders, which reflects poorly on his professional conduct as a judge. “Judges hold a position of authority and trust, and their personal actions should exemplify the integrity and impartiality expected of their professional roles,” he added.
Concluding the proceedings, the Allahabad High Court approved the wife’s appeal, ordering the husband to pay outstanding arrears and increase the maintenance payments. The court also imposed a ₹50,000 litigation cost on the husband, emphasizing the need for accountability and ethical conduct among members of the judiciary.
