The Allahabad High Court has reduced the monthly maintenance amount payable by a husband, a junior lawyer, to his estranged wife, observing that lawyers often face severe financial hardship during the initial stages of their practice in district courts.
Case Background
The Court was hearing a Criminal Revision petition filed by the revisionist (husband) challenging the order dated May 16, 2024, passed by the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Pilibhit. In the impugned order, the Family Court had directed the revisionist to pay Rs. 5,000 per month to his wife under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.).
Arguments of the Parties
The counsel for the revisionist submitted that the husband completed his L.L.B. in 2016 and is currently preparing for competitive examinations. It was argued that he has started his legal practice in the District Court under the guidance of a senior counsel, making his income “highly uncertain.”
The revisionist contended that on some days he earns between Rs. 300 to Rs. 400, while on other days he earns nothing, making it “extremely difficult for him to meet even his basic livelihood expenses.”
Opposing the plea, the counsel for the wife and the learned A.G.A. argued that the revisionist is a practicing lawyer earning a “handsome income.” It was alleged that the husband owns 8 bighas of land and two houses, deriving a rental income of more than Rs. 50,000 per month. They contended that given the present inflation, the awarded amount was not excessive.
Court’s Observations and Analysis
Justice Madan Pal Singh, while deciding the revision, noted that the marriage between the parties is an admitted fact.
Regarding the financial status of the husband, the Court observed that while he completed his law degree in 2016, he has recently started practicing under a senior lawyer. The Court took judicial notice of the struggles faced by legal practitioners at the start of their careers.
“It is a matter of common knowledge that most lawyers at the initial stage of practice in district courts struggle to earn sufficient income and often face severe financial hardship,” the Court observed.
The Bench noted that there was no documentary evidence on record to prove any stable or regular income of the husband. The Court referred to the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Rajnesh vs. Neha (2021) 2 SCC 324, Kalyan Dey Chowdhury vs. Rita Dey Chowdhury Nee Nandy (AIR 2017 SC 2383), and Kulbhushan Kumar vs. Raj Kumari (1970) 3 SCC 129, emphasizing that the amount of maintenance must be “reasonable and proportionate to the paying capacity of the husband.”
Decision
The High Court held that the maintenance amount of Rs. 5,000 awarded by the Family Court was “not commensurate with the uncertain and fluctuating income of the revisionist.”
While affirming that it is the legal obligation of a husband to maintain his wife, the Court stated that the amount must be within his financial capacity. Consequently, the Court partly allowed the revision and modified the order.
“Accordingly, the amount of maintenance is reduced to Rs. 3,750/- per month from the date of the application,” the Court ruled.
The Court further directed that any arrears remaining unpaid must be cleared by the revisionist in fifteen equal monthly installments. The first installment is directed to be paid on or before December 20, 2025.
Case Details:
- Case Title: Sri Hiralal vs. State of U.P. and Another
- Case Number: Criminal Revision No. 3510 of 2024
- Bench: Justice Madan Pal Singh
- Counsel for Revisionist: Sri Chakshuvendra Pachauri
- Counsel for Opposite Party: Sri Atul Pandey, G.A.
- Citation: 2025:AHC:206396
