PM Awas Yojana House Is Not Income, Can't Bar Wife's Maintenance Claim: Allahabad High Court

The Allahabad High Court recently refused to interfere with a family court order directing a man to pay maintenance to his wife, holding that a house allotted under the Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana cannot be treated as a source of livelihood to deny maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) [corresponding to Section 144 of BNSS].

Dismissing a criminal revision filed by Mannan @ Abdul Mannan, the bench of Justice Garima Prashad also reiterated that an able-bodied husband cannot escape his statutory obligation to maintain his wife merely by claiming that he is unemployed or earns very little.

The revision challenged a September 1, 2023 order of the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bulandshahr, directing the husband to pay maintenance of Rs 4,000 per month from the date of institution of the proceedings and Rs 5,000 per month from the date of the order.

The husband argued before the high court that he was an illiterate driver earning about Rs 5,000 per month and was presently unemployed. He further claimed that his wife earned through sewing and embroidery work and had also been allotted a house under the Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana. According to him, the family court had awarded maintenance beyond his financial capacity.

The wife, however, had pleaded before the family court that the parties were married on December 3, 2016 according to Muslim rites and customs. She alleged that after marriage she was subjected to cruelty and harassment over demands for additional dowry, forcing her to leave the matrimonial home and live with her parents. She also alleged that despite having sufficient means, her husband had neglected and refused to maintain her. She had sought maintenance of Rs 20,000 per month.

The family court had found that the parties were legally married, that the wife was living separately for sufficient cause and that there was no reliable evidence to establish that she had an independent source of income sufficient to maintain herself. It therefore awarded maintenance in her favour.

Can PM Awas Yojana house deny maintenance under Section 125 CrPC?

The high court answered this in the negative.

Justice Prashad held that the husband's plea regarding the wife's earnings was unsupported by evidence. Court observed that "mere assertions in pleadings, unsupported by satisfactory evidence, cannot be accepted as proof of financial independence".

Rejecting another contention advanced by the husband, court further held that "allotment of a residential house under a welfare scheme cannot be treated as a source of livelihood disentitling a wife from claiming maintenance."

Court also rejected the argument that the husband lacked the financial capacity to pay maintenance.

Referring to the family court's findings, Justice Prashad noted that the husband was a skilled driver and an able-bodied person capable of earning. Court observed that "a husband cannot avoid his statutory obligation to maintain his wife merely by asserting that he is unemployed or earning a meagre income," adding that the capacity to earn and the obligation to maintain are relevant considerations while determining maintenance under Section 125 CrPC.

The judgment reiterates that proceedings under Section 125 CrPC are intended to prevent destitution and vagrancy and provide a swift and effective remedy to a wife who is unable to maintain herself. The provision, court observed, is a measure of social justice aimed at protecting women from neglect and abandonment.

In support of this view, court relied upon the Supreme Court's decisions in Chaturbhuj v. Sita Bai (2008), Bhuwan Mohan Singh v. Meena (2015) and Shamima Farooqui v. Shahid Khan (2015    ), which recognise that a wife need not be rendered completely destitute before claiming maintenance and that an able-bodied husband cannot evade his responsibility to support her.

Justice Prashad further held that the maintenance awarded by the family court could not be described as excessive. Considering the prevailing cost of living and the object of Section 125 CrPC, court found that the amount of Rs 4,000 per month from the institution of proceedings and Rs 5,000 per month from the date of the family court's order was "modest and justified".

Court also underlined the limited scope of revisional jurisdiction, observing that the high court does not sit as an appellate court to re-appreciate evidence merely because another view is possible. Interference is warranted only where the findings suffer from manifest illegality, perversity or material irregularity resulting in miscarriage of justice.

Finding no such infirmity in the family court's order, the high court dismissed the husband's revision petition and upheld the maintenance awarded to the wife.

Case Title: Mannan @ Abdul Mannan v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another

Judgment Date: June 17, 2026

Bench: Justice Garima Prashad