‘Mere earning of wife does not disentitle her’: Allahabad HC rejects man’s plea to deny maintenance to wife earning Rs 11 lakh a year
The Allahabad High Court observed that if a "substantial disparity" exists between the spouses' incomes, the wife is entitled to support that allows her to maintain the standard of living she enjoyed in her matrimonial life.
The Allahabad High Court recently dismissed a man’s prayer challenging a family court order directing him to pay maintenance to his wife, pleading she is educated, working and financially independent. The husband claimed that her take-home salary is over Rs 11 lakh annually, while the wife stated he was drawing a package of Rs 40 lakh per annum.
The bench of Justice Madan Pal Singh stated in the order, “Even assuming that wife has some source of income, the material available on record clearly reflects a substantial disparity in the earning capacity and financial status of the parties. The income attributed to the wife cannot be said to be sufficient to enable her to maintain the same standard of living to which she was accustomed during her matrimonial life.”
“The court is unable to accept the submission that mere employment or earning of the wife is, by itself, a ground to deny maintenance. 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,” the bench observed.
The court quoted a supreme court judgment in the order stating…”mere earning of the wife does not disentitle her from maintenance; the decisive test is whether such income is sufficient to enable her to maintain the same standard of living as enjoyed in the matrimonial home.”
The court was hearing a criminal revision filed by Ravinder Singh Bisht seeking to set aside the order of the Additional Principal Judge, family court, Ghaziabad, on January 4 last year, directing him to pay his wife a sum of Rs 15,000 per month as maintenance.
The counsel for the husband contended that the family court order is unjustified on the grounds that the wife is an educated and working woman, financially independent, and therefore not entitled to maintenance. In support of his submission, the Income Tax return filed by the wife in 2018 was placed before the court, according to which her annual credited salary is stated to be Rs 11,28,780.
The counsel also urged that the wife had voluntarily left the matrimonial home, was unwilling to discharge her matrimonial obligations, and had refused to reside with the husband’s aged parents. It was also submitted that the husband was compelled to leave his employment to take care of his ailing parents and is burdened with financial liabilities, thereby lacking sufficient means to pay the maintenance awarded.
Story continues below this ad
Husband did not disclose his true income, claims wife
Opposing the plea, the wife’s counsel submitted that the husband had not disclosed his true income and standard of living before the court. In support of the contention, the counsel placed the statement of the husband recorded before the trial court admitting he was employed with a company from April 2018 to April 2020, and was drawing an annual package of approximately Rs 40 lakh per annum.
The counsel contended that mere employment of the wife cannot be a ground to deny maintenance, particularly when there exists a glaring disparity in the income and status of the parties.
After submissions from both sides, the bench observed, “The contention of the revisionist (husband) regarding his alleged financial constraints and liabilities has remained a bald assertion. No convincing or reliable material has been placed on record to establish that the revisionist lacks sufficient means so as to relieve him of his statutory obligation to maintain his wife.”
The bench of Justice Singh stated in the order, “The material available on record, the maintenance awarded by the learned court below appears to be just, reasonable, and commensurate with the status and earning capacity of the revisionist. The impugned order does not suffer from any perversity, illegality, or material irregularity warranting interference in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction. Accordingly, the criminal revision is dismissed.”
Bhupendra Pandey is the Resident Editor of the Lucknow edition of The Indian Express. With decades of experience in the heart of Uttar Pradesh’s journalistic landscape, he oversees the bureau’s coverage of India’s most politically significant state. His expertise lies in navigating the complex intersections of state governance, legislative policy, and grassroots social movements. From tracking high-stakes assembly elections to analyzing administrative shifts in the Hindi heartland, Bhupendra’s reportage provides a definitive lens on the region's evolution.
Authoritativeness He leads a team of seasoned reporters and investigators, ensuring that The Indian Express’ signature "Journalism of Courage" is reflected in every regional story. His leadership is central to the Lucknow bureau’s reputation for breaking stories that hold the powerful to account, making him a trusted figure for policy analysts, political scholars, and the general public seeking to understand the nuances of UP’s complex landscape.
Trustworthiness & Accountability Under his stewardship, the Lucknow edition adheres to the strictest standards of factual verification and non-partisan reporting. He serves as a bridge between the local populace and the national discourse, ensuring that regional issues are elevated with accuracy and context. By prioritizing primary-source reporting and on-the-ground verification, he upholds the trust that readers have placed in the Express brand for nearly a century. ... Read More
