‘Initial Years For Young Lawyers Are Financially Difficult’: Allahabad HC Reduces Maintenance To be Paid By Advocate

The Allahabad High Court recently observed that lawyers at the initial stage of practice in district courts often struggle to earn even a basic livelihood, noting that their income is usually uncertain, irregular and marked by financial hardship.

Making this observation, court reduced the monthly maintenance payable by a young practising advocate to his wife, holding that the family court had fixed an amount disproportionate to his actual earning capacity.

The bench of Justice Madan Pal Singh partly allowed a criminal revision filed by Sri Hiralal, modifying a May 16, 2024 order of the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Pilibhit, which had directed him to pay Rs. 5,000 per month as maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The high court reduced the amount to Rs. 3,750 per month, payable from the date of the application.

The maintenance proceedings were initiated by Kamla Devi, the legally wedded wife of the revisionist, who approached the family court alleging neglect and seeking monthly support. Accepting her plea, the family court had awarded Rs. 5,000 per month, taking into account inflation and the general cost of living.

Challenging that order, Hiralal approached the high court, contending that the family court had failed to properly assess his financial capacity. He submitted that he completed his LL.B. in 2016 and was preparing for competitive examinations, while having only recently started practising law under the guidance of a senior advocate in the district court. According to him, his income was neither fixed nor stable.

The revisionist told the court that on some days he earned Rs. 300–400, while on several days he earned nothing at all, making it difficult for him to meet even basic expenses. On this basis, he argued that the direction to pay Rs. 5,000 per month was excessive and beyond his means.

The plea was opposed by the wife and the State, who contended that Hiralal was a practising lawyer earning a substantial income. It was further alleged that he owned agricultural land and houses and earned rental income, placing his monthly earnings at over Rs. 50,000. The respondents argued that, given present-day expenses, the maintenance awarded by the family court could not be said to be excessive.

After hearing the parties, the high court noted that the marital relationship between the parties was undisputed. However, court found that there was no documentary material on record to establish that the husband had any fixed or regular source of income. It also recorded that it was admitted that he had only recently started legal practice.

Justice Singh observed that it is a matter of common knowledge that most lawyers at the initial stage of practice in district courts struggle to earn sufficient income and often face severe financial hardship. In such circumstances, court held, income cannot be assumed merely on the basis of the profession.

Relying on Supreme Court judgments in Rajnesh vs Neha, Kalyan Dey Chowdhury vs Rita Dey Chowdhury and Kulbhushan Kumar vs Raj Kumari, the court reiterated that while a husband has a legal obligation to maintain his wife, the maintenance amount must be reasonable and proportionate to his paying capacity.

Applying these principles to the facts of the case, court held that the maintenance of Rs. 5,000 per month awarded by the family court was not commensurate with the husband’s uncertain and fluctuating income. It therefore reduced the amount to Rs. 3,750 per month from the date of the application.

Court clarified that any amount already paid by the husband towards maintenance would be adjusted. It further directed that if any arrears remained unpaid, the same should be cleared in fifteen equal monthly instalments, with the first instalment to be paid on or before December 20, 2025, and the remaining instalments by the fourteenth day of each succeeding month.

Case Title: Sri Hiralal vs. State of U.P. and Another

Order Date: November 19, 2025

Bench: Justice Madan Pal Singh