Wife’s Salary No Bar to Maintenance If Lifestyle Gap Exists: Allahabad High Court Upholds Rs. 15,000 Monthly Maintenance

The Allahabad High Court has held that mere employment or earning by a wife is not a ground to deny her maintenance, observing that the decisive test is whether her income is sufficient to maintain the same standard of living as enjoyed in the matrimonial home.

Dismissing a revision petition, the bench of Justice Madan Pal Singh upheld the order of the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Ghaziabad, directing Ravinder Singh Bisht to pay Rs 15,000 per month to his wife, Smt. Prabhjot Kaur, under Section 125 Cr.P.C. (corresponding to Section 144 of the BNSS), from the date of the application.

The husband had challenged the order dated January 4, 2025, passed in a 2019 maintenance case, contending that the award was unjustified as the wife was educated, employed and financially independent. He relied upon her Income Tax Return/Form-16 of 2018, which reflected an annual credited salary of Rs 11,28,780. According to him, this income disentitled her from claiming maintenance.

It was further argued that the wife had voluntarily left the matrimonial home, refused to discharge her matrimonial obligations and declined to reside with his aged parents. The revisionist also claimed that he had left his employment to care for his ailing parents and was burdened with financial liabilities, leaving him without sufficient means to comply with the maintenance order.

Opposing the revision, counsel for the wife submitted that the husband had not disclosed his true income and standard of living. It was brought on record that in his statement before the trial court, the husband admitted that between April 2018 and April 2020 he was employed with J.P. Morgan and was drawing an annual package of approximately Rs 40 lakh.

The high court noted that it was undisputed that the wife is the legally wedded spouse of the revisionist. While the husband relied on documents showing the wife’s income, court observed that he had not placed any cogent evidence to demonstrate a commensurate reduction in his own earning capacity.

Court further found that even assuming the wife had some independent income, the material on record reflected a substantial disparity in the earning capacity and financial status of the parties. The income attributed to the wife could not be said to be sufficient to enable her to maintain the same standard of living to which she was accustomed during her matrimonial life.

Rejecting the husband’s plea of financial hardship, court held that his assertions regarding liabilities and inability to pay remained bald and unsupported by reliable material. It reiterated that the object of Section 125 Cr.P.C. is not merely to prevent destitution but to ensure that the wife is able to live with dignity consistent with the status of the husband.

Relying on the Supreme Court’s decisions in Shailja v. Khobbanna (2018) and Rajnesh v. Neha (2021), court emphasised that the decisive consideration is not whether the wife is earning, but whether her income is sufficient to maintain the standard of living she enjoyed in the matrimonial home.

Finding no perversity, illegality or material irregularity in the family court’s order, the high court held that the maintenance awarded was just and reasonable and dismissed the criminal revision.

Case Title: Ravinder Singh Bisht vs. State of UP and Another

Order Date: February 5, 2026

Bench: Justice Madan Pal Singh