Can a Working Wife Claim Maintenance? Allahabad HC Denies Claim, Notes Rs. 73k Salary and Rs. 80 Lakh Flat
Maintenance battle
The Allahabad High Court at Lucknow bench recently set aside a Family Court order directing a husband to pay monthly maintenance to his wife, holding that her independent income was sufficient for self-sustenance. However, court upheld the award of Rs. 25,000 per month to their minor son, emphasizing the father’s continuing responsibility towards the child.
A revision petition was filed by the husband, a software engineer, challenging the Family Court’s March 2024 order directing him to pay Rs. 15,000 per month to his estranged wife, and Rs. 25,000 per month to their three-year-old son. The couple, married in December 2014, has been living separately since February 2023 due to marital discord. Their son was born in November 2021.
At the time of the proceedings, the husband was earning around Rs. 1.75 lakh per month, while the wife, also a software engineer employed with Tata Consultancy Services, was drawing a salary of Rs. 73,000 per month. In her affidavit filed earlier in line with Supreme Court guidelines in Rajnesh vs. Neha and Others (2021), she had disclosed an income of Rs. 50,000 per month. The records further showed that she purchased a flat worth Rs.80.43 lakh in Lucknow in May 2025, booked months before the separation.
The High Court, while considering the rival submissions, referred extensively to the Supreme Court’s ruling in Rajnesh vs. Neha and Others case, which clarified that a wife’s earning capacity does not bar her from claiming maintenance if her income is insufficient to sustain the lifestyle she enjoyed during marriage. Several precedents were cited, including Shailja vs. Khobbanna (2018) and Sunita Kachwaha vs. Anil Kachwaha (2014) where courts had held that “sustenance does not mean, and cannot be allowed to mean mere survival” and maintenance claims cannot be rejected merely because the wife earns some income.
However, Justice Saurabh Lavania observed that in this case, the wife’s financial position, including her steady employment and ownership of a residential property, demonstrated that she was capable of maintaining herself without financial support from her husband. “In granting maintenance to the wife, the Family Court committed an error,” the high court ruled, setting aside the Rs. 15,000 monthly award in her favour.
At the same time, court upheld the direction requiring the husband to pay Rs. 25,000 per month to his minor son. Stressing the father’s higher obligation in law to support his child, court said the Family Court’s order on this count was justified and required no interference. The father must continue to discharge his legal responsibilities, it added.
The court thus partly allowed the revision petition.
Case Title: Saurabh Srivastava Vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And 2 Others
Order Date: August 20, 2025
Bench: Justice Saurabh Lavania