Allahabad High Court says maintenance must balance need and financial capacity.

The Allahabad High Court recently observed that maintenance under Section 125 CrPC (now Section 144 BNSS) is meant to secure sustenance and dignity and cannot become a “bonanza or windfall” for the person claiming it.

"The object of Section 125 Cr.P.C. is to prevent destitution and vagrancy...the provision is not intended to confer an unmerited financial advantage or to serve as a source of enrichment for the person claiming maintenance," said the bench of Justice Lakshmi Kant Shukla said. 

Court clarified that the amount of maintenance must, therefore, be determined having regard to the needs of the claimant, the income and financial capacity of the person liable to pay, the standard of living of the parties and the other relevant circumstances of the case, so as to strike a fair balance between the legitimate needs of the claimant and the corresponding financial capacity of the person liable to maintain.

Who filed the Section 125 CrPC application?

The high court was hearing a revision filed by the husband challenging the order passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Jaunpur, on his wife's application under Section 125 CrPC, directing him to pay ₹15,000 per month as maintenance. The wife had also challenged the family court's order, seeking enhancement of the maintenance amount. The high court clubbed both revisions and decided them together.

Husband's case:

The husband contended that the wife was living separately without sufficient reason. He also argued that she was capable of maintaining herself because she was educated, held a B.Ed. degree and had worked as a teacher at a school in Ghaziabad. Salary slips for August, September and October 2021 showed a monthly income of ₹45,000.

Wife's case:

The wife argued that the family court had wrongly assessed the husband's financial capacity. She pointed out that he was a B.Tech graduate, co-founder and CEO of a Private Limited company, and claimed that he earned approximately ₹4 lakh per month.

High court on both parties' claims:

The high court held that the wife had successfully established that the husband was a co-founder of a company, but had not established that he earned ₹4 lakh per month. Court relied on the salary slip showing his monthly salary as ₹50,000.

"Merely because the authorised share capital of the aforesaid company is shown to be Rs. 50,00,000/- and its paid-up share capital, as reflected in the balance sheet, is Rs. 20,00,000/-, no presumption can be drawn that the company is generating such substantial income as would enable it to pay a monthly salary of Rs. 4,00,000/- to one of its employees," court observed. 

On the husband's claim that the wife earned a monthly income of ₹45,000, court took note of the wife's counsel that the salary slips provided by the husband, related only to three months in 2021 and there was no evidence that she continued to earn the same income in the subsequent period.

25% benchmark for maintenance is only a guiding factor

While deciding on the quantum of the maintenance, court referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Kalyan Dey Chowdhury v. Rita Dey Chowdhury Nee Nandy, (2017) 14 SCC 200, observing that ordinarily 25% of the husband's net income may be considered a reasonable benchmark for determining maintenance.

However, the high court emphasised that this percentage is only a guiding factor and not an inflexible rule.

However, in the present case, court opined that, on the family court's assessment of ₹50,000 monthly income, ₹15,000 maintenance amounted to 30% of the husband's monthly income, and was therefore already substantially higher than the 25% benchmark.

"Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the material available on record, we find no justification to further enhance the amount of maintenance awarded by the trial court,” held the court. 

Accordingly, high court dismissed both criminal revisions.

Case Title: Ankit Singh v. State of U.P. and Another

Order Date: September 22, 2026

Bench: Justice Lakshmi Kant Shukla

Tags: