Today, while hearing a divorce case, the bench of the Allahbaad High Court has held that a wife’s maintenance can extend up to 25 per cent of the husband’s income.

The Court rejected the husband’s petition and upheld the Family Court’s decision to enhance the maintenance amount awarded to the wife.

The High Court noted that a husband has both a moral and legal obligation to maintain his wife when she is unable to support herself. It pointed out that the petitioner had not claimed any physical disability and was therefore a healthy individual who could not evade his responsibility.

The order was passed by Justice Madan Pal Singh while dismissing the criminal revision petition filed by Suresh Chandra.

Case Brief:

Back in December 2024, Suresh Chandra moved the Allahabad High Court challenging the order passed by the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Shahjahanpur, on July 26, 2024, under the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). Through his petition, Chandra sought to set aside the Family Court’s decision increasing the maintenance payable to his wife from ₹500 per month to ₹3,000 per month, with effect from the date of the order.

Assailing the Family Court’s ruling, Chandra’s counsel told the High Court that the wife’s application under Section 125 of the CrPC had originally been allowed on September 9, 2003, when the trial court directed the husband to pay a monthly maintenance of ₹500.

It was further submitted that the wife later moved an application under Section 127 of the CrPC on June 6, 2015, seeking enhancement of the maintenance amount, which the Family Court allowed by raising the allowance to ₹3,000 per month in her favour.

The Cousel for the petitioner, argued that the petitioner works as a labourer and earns only a modest income, making it difficult for him to survive. It was further submitted that the Family Court had enhanced the maintenance payable to his wife for the sixth time, which, according to the petitioner, was excessive.

The lawyer contended that the trial court failed to take these factors into account while increasing the maintenance amount under Section 127 of the CrPC.

Opposing the plea, the Senior Additional Government Advocate (AGA) for the state submitted that in view of rising inflation, a maintenance amount of ₹3,000 per month could not be termed unreasonable or beyond the petitioner’s capacity to pay.

The Court mentioned that it is a legal duty to maintain his wife when she is unable to support herself.

It further noted that there was nothing on record to show that respondent number two, Chandra’s wife, had any independent source of income. In the absence of such material, the Court held that it could safely be presumed that she was unable to maintain herself.

Referring to several Supreme Court judgments, the Court observed that even if the petitioner is treated as a labourer, he could reasonably earn about ₹600 per day, amounting to nearly ₹18,000 per month. It noted that the Supreme Court has held that maintenance of up to 25 per cent of the husband’s total income—around ₹4,500 in the present case—can be awarded as a subsistence allowance.

In view of these factors, the Allahabad High Court upheld the Family Court’s order and held that the enhanced maintenance of ₹3,000 per month was not excessive and, in fact, remained a modest amount. The petition filed by Chandra was accordingly dismissed.