Initially lawyers struggle to earn sufficient income: Allahabad High Court reduces maintenance amount payable by advocate

The counsel for the revisionist Chakshuvendra Pachauri submitted that the husband completed his LLB in 2016 and was preparing for competitive examinations. It was further submitted that he has started his practice in the District Court and his income was highly uncertain.

The counsel argued that sometimes the husband earns Rs 300- 400 per day and sometimes nothing at all, making it difficult for him to meet his basic livelihood expenses.

On the other hand, the counsel for the state, Atul Pandey, submitted that the husband was a practicing lawyer in the district court earning good income.

The court noted that the husband’s income was uncertain and fluctuating, and there was no documentary evidence on record regarding any stable or regular income.

“The revisionist has stated that sometimes he earns Rs. 300–400/- per day, and sometimes he earns nothing. In the absence of any reliable material showing a fixed or stable income, and keeping in view the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajnesh vs. Neha (2021) Kalyan Dey Chowdhury vs. Rita Dey Chowdhury Nee Nandy, and Kulbhushan Kumar vs. Raj Kumari, (1970), the amount of maintenance must be reasonable and proportionate to the paying capacity of the husband,” the court said.

The court held that the maintenance amount of Rs 5,000 per month was not commensurate with the uncertain and fluctuating income of the husband.

“It is true that it is the legal obligation of a husband to maintain his wife, but the amount of maintenance must be reasonable and within his financial capacity,” the court said.

Accordingly, the court reduced the maintenance amount.

“The present criminal revision is partly allowed. The amount of maintenance is reduced from Rs. 5,000/- per month to Rs. 3,750/- per month from the date of the application,” the court said.