Section 125 CrPC | MP High Court Says Salary Slips Essential Before Fixing Maintenance

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has set aside a Family Court order granting monthly maintenance to a woman and her minor son, holding that maintenance proceedings must be decided on verified financial records rather than assumptions about the earning capacity of either spouse. The Court observed that salary slips and other reliable proof of income are essential for arriving at a fair maintenance amount and remanded the matter for fresh consideration after directing both parties to place their current pay records on record.

Justice Dwarka Dhish Bansal passed the order while partly allowing a criminal revision filed by husband Rishabh Shrivastava against an order of the Principal Judge, Family Court, Balaghat. The Family Court had directed him to pay Rs.10,000 per month to his wife Ritu Shrivastava alias Pinki Shrivastava and Rs.5,000 per month to their minor son under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Appearing for the husband, Advocate Nilesh Kotecha, assisted by Advocate Namrata Kotecha, argued that the Family Court had ignored the actual financial material available on record. It was submitted that the wife had admitted earning Rs.6,000 per month in her affidavit of assets and liabilities but failed to produce any salary slip in support of the claim. Counsel further argued that the husband's salary slip, showing a monthly income of Rs.24,332 from Basant Agro Tech (India) Limited, Akola, was wrongly ignored while the Family Court presumed his income to be Rs.50,000 solely because he was working as a Marketing Manager.

Advocate Paritosh Trivedi, appearing for the wife and the minor son, supported the Family Court's order but conceded before the High Court that no salary slip had been produced on behalf of the wife before the Family Court.

While examining the record, the High Court upheld the Family Court's finding that the wife had sufficient reason to live separately from her husband. However, it found serious flaws in the manner in which the maintenance amount had been calculated. The Court noted that both spouses were employed and, therefore, their actual financial status ought to have been determined through documentary evidence instead of assumptions.

Referring to the Supreme Court's judgment in Rajnesh v. Neha, the High Court reiterated that parties in maintenance proceedings are required to file complete affidavits of assets and liabilities along with supporting documents such as salary certificates, pay slips and income tax records. The Court observed that the wife's failure to produce her salary slip amounted to non-compliance with these mandatory disclosure requirements.

The Court further observed that the Family Court committed an error in accepting the wife's stated income of Rs.6,000 without proof while simultaneously rejecting the husband's available salary slip and presuming his income to be more than double the documented amount. "The Family Court has committed an illegality in accepting the income of the respondent-wife to be Rs.6,000 per month... and has committed an illegality in presuming the income of the petitioner-husband to be Rs.50,000 per month," the Court held.

Justice Bansal also relied on a 2025 Delhi High Court decision holding that where a spouse withholds recent salary details without explanation, the court may draw an adverse inference regarding the claim of financial incapacity. The judgment emphasised that maintenance cannot rest upon speculative claims unsupported by documentary evidence.

Holding that the Family Court should have directed both parties to produce their current pay slips before fixing maintenance, the High Court set aside the impugned order and restored the maintenance application to its original number for fresh adjudication. It directed the parties to appear before the Family Court on August 18, 2026. Until the matter is decided afresh, the husband has been directed to pay interim maintenance of Rs.10,000 per month from July 1, 2026, while clearing arrears up to June 30, 2026, at the earlier rate of Rs.15,000 per month.

Case Title: Rishabh Shrivastava v. Smt. Ritu Shrivastava @ Pinki Shrivastava and Others

Date of Order: July 17, 2026

Bench: Justice Dwarka Dhish Bansal