Read Time: 06 minutes

Synopsis

The Allahabad High Court recently rejected a husband's plea contesting the maintenance amount ordered by the family court to be paid by him to his estranged wife.

The bench of Justice Surendra Singh referred to the Supreme Court's ruling in Dr. Kulbhushan Kumar vs. Smt. Raj Kumari  (1970) where deduction for payment of LIC, home loan, and installments towards payment of the loan for purchasing land was held not permissible while calculating gross salary for the purpose of Section 125 CrPC. 

Court was dealing with a criminal revision petition filed by a husband against the family court's judgment on a plea filed by his wife under Section 125 CrPC. 

By the impugned judgment, the family court had allowed the wife's plea for maintenance and ordered the husband to pay maintenance of Rs.15,000 to her and Rs. 5000 each to her children. 

The counsel for the husband argued that the wife was residing separately on her own will despite a decree for restitution of conjugal rights having been passed against her by the family court. The counsel also alleged illicit relations between the wife and the husband's younger brother. 

The husband also contested the maintenance amount alleging that the family court did not take into account his monthly income which should have been calculated by deducting the installments towards the loan taken by him for purchasing land and paying the premium of LIC.

Apart from that, the husband claimed that wife, who was a B.Ed and had also been trained as a beautician, earned about Rs.40,000 per month through tuition and other part-time jobs. 

However, the high court rejected the husband's plea. It referred to the top court's judgment in Dr. Kulbhushan Kumar case where it was held that only compulsory statutory deductions as income tax can be reduced from the gross salary. The Top Court had held that no deduction is permissible for payment of LIC, home loan, instalments towards payment of loan for purchasing land or premium of policy of insurance while calculating gross salary. 

"Thus, the alleged deduction from the gross salary of the revisionist/husband due to payment for premium of insurance or instalment of plots purchased by him cannot be taken into consideration as no such deduction from gross salary is permissible under the law," therefore, the single judge bench held. 

Further, court highlighted that the Supreme Court has held that while deciding the criminal revision against the order passed under Section 125 CrPC, court shall take only consideration the present income of the husband and wife for determining maintenance payable to the wife and children.

Therefore, noting that apart from the fees for the school of the children, money was also required for purchasing books, stationery, conveyance to school, and other expenses of the children, court opined that the maintenance amount decided by the family court was excessive. 

Case Title: Rana Pratap Singh v. Neetu Singh And 2 Others