The Allahabad High Court has held that a husband is under a legal as well as a pious obligation to maintain his wife, minor children and parents who cannot maintain themselves, citing a verse from the Manusmriti alongside Section 125 CrPC and Supreme Court precedent.
Modifying a Family Court order, Justice Praveen Kumar Giri directed that 25% of the husband’s gross salary, after excluding only income tax, be deducted at source and credited to the wife’s bank account as maintenance.
Background
The wife and her minor daughter filed a criminal revision against the order dated 22.12.2025 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Kanpur Nagar, in a maintenance case under Section 125 CrPC. The Family Court had awarded ₹19,000 per month, while the wife had claimed ₹40,000 per month.
The husband works as a Window Operator in Indian Bank, District Unnao.
Arguments
Advocate Diwas Verma, appearing for the revisionists, argued that the amount awarded did not match the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Dr. Kulbhushan Kumar vs. Raj Kumari and Kalyan Dey Chowdhury vs. Rita Dey Chowdhury Nee Nandy, where 25% of the husband’s salary was held to be just and proper maintenance.
He further submitted that deductions for voluntary financial commitments such as loan repayments cannot dilute the husband’s primary duty to maintain his wife. He relied on the Supreme Court’s 2026 ruling in Deepa Joshi vs. Gaurav Joshi and argued that the husband’s gross salary, excluding only income tax, should be treated as his income. He sought a direction to the husband’s employer to deduct 25% of the salary and credit it to the wife’s verified bank account.
Advocate Bhole Ram, appearing for the husband, submitted that there was no chance of the husband having his wife and minor daughter with him, and that he was ready for a deduction of 25% of his salary towards maintenance. Additional Government Advocate Pankaj Kumar appeared for the State.
Court Cites Manusmriti, Section 125 CrPC
The Court observed:
“This Court observes that not only legal but a pious obligation is upon the husband to maintain his chaste wife, minor children and parents, if they are financially unable to maintain themselves.”
It said the same principle appears in paragraph 10 of the Supreme Court’s judgment in Anju Garg and another vs. Deepak Kumar Garg, in Section 125 CrPC/Section 144 BNSS, and in Chapter XI Verse 10 of the Manusmriti.
The Court reproduced the Sanskrit verse:
“वृद्धौ च मातापितरौ साध्वी भार्या सुतः शिशुः । अपकार्यशतं कृत्वा भर्तव्या मनुर्ब्रवीत ॥”
Its own English translation reads:
“Aged parents, a virtuous wife, and an infant son must be maintained (supported), even by performing a hundred misdeeds (improper actions)- so said Manu.”
From Anju Garg, the Court quoted the Supreme Court’s view that it is “the sacrosanct duty of the husband to provide financial support to the wife and to the minor children.”
Outcome
Based on the submissions of both sides, the High Court modified the order of 22.12.2025. It directed the Principal Judge, Family Court, Kanpur Nagar, and the higher authority of Indian Bank, District Unnao, to deduct 25% of the husband’s gross salary, after excluding the income tax deduction, from his salary account and credit it to the wife’s verified bank account.
The Family Court was also directed to pass an order instructing the bank’s higher authority to make this deduction. The revision was disposed of.
Case Title: Pinki Verma And Another vs. State of U.P. and Another
Case No.: Criminal Revision No. 1465 of 2026
Bench: Justice Praveen Kumar Giri
Date: October 22, 2026
