Read Time: 07 minutes

Synopsis

The Allahabad High Court recently upheld the decision of a family court allowing around 25% of the husband's pension as a monthly maintenance allowance to his estranged wife. Court said that the amount of Rs.7,000 as allowed could not be considered excessive in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court. 

The bench of Justice Surendra Singh referred to the ruling of the Apex Court in Kulbhushan Kumar Vs. Raj Kumari, (1970) where it was held that 25% of the husband’s net salary would be just and proper to be awarded as maintenance allowance to the wife.

Court noted that in the case at hand, 25% of the husband's monthly pension was calculated to Rs.8,664, whereas the family court had granted only Rs.7,000 as monthly maintenance allowance to his estranged wife. 

Therefore, the maintenance allowance granted to the opposite party no. 2 (wife) cannot be considered as excessive vis-a-vis the monthly pension of the revisionist (husband) rather it is on the lower side, pointed out the bench while upholding the family court's decision. 

The husband, a retired 79-year-old man, moved the high court challenging two orders of the family court. The family court had approved his estranged wife's request for maintenance allowance under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), and it had also turned down his plea under Section 127 of the CrPC for reduction in maintenance allowance.

Before the high court, the husband's counsel alleged that the woman claiming to be his wife had never been legally married to him, and her two children were not biologically related to him. The court was informed that the husband was not residing in the village where the woman lived with the husband's brother and that he had his own family, including a wife and two sons, in the city. Furthermore, it was noted that the family court had previously denied the husband's request for DNA testing.

Apart from that, the counsel contended that in determining the maintenance allowance, the family court erroneously included income from agricultural land located in the husband's village, despite the husband's assertion that he did not receive any income from it. The counsel clarified that the husband solely relied on a pension amounting to Rs. 34,656.

The high court noted that before the family court, the wife had placed documentary evidence that supported her claim to be the legally wedded wife. On the other hand, the husband had failed to provide any proof of his legal marriage to his alleged wife in the city. 

The high court emphasised that the proceedings under Section 125 CrPC are summary in nature in which only prima facie it has to be seen that the applicant is the wife of opposite party. "It is a social legislation enacted for protecting the wife, minor children and parents of a person from vagrancy and destitution," court said.

Further, regarding the quantum of the maintenance, the single judge bench observed that even if it were computed based solely on the husband's monthly pension, the amount allowed would still be less than 25% of the pension amount.

Therefore, court held that there was no illegality, irregularity, or jurisdictional error in the impugned orders of the family court.

Case Title: Matapher v. State of U.P. and Another