5 min readNew DelhiAug 7, 2026 11:50 AM IST
First published on: Aug 7, 2026 at 11:21 AM IST
The Uttarakhand High Court recently enhanced a woman’s monthly maintenance from Rs 10,000 to Rs 15,000, observing that maintenance should enable a wife to live with dignity and in accordance with her husband’s standard of living. The court noted that the man, who was working with the State Bank of India (SBI), had loans but clarified that his “personal financial commitments” cannot override his obligation to maintain his legally wedded wife.
Justice Alok Mahra, while allowing the woman’s revision petition, noted that the husband’s father was a pensioner and his two brothers were government employees. Although the wife was well qualified, she was presently unemployed and had no independent source of livelihood.
“The loans relied upon by respondent number two (husband) are personal financial commitments and cannot override his statutory obligation to maintain his legally wedded wife under Section 125 CrPC. It is a settled principle of law that a legally wedded wife is entitled to maintenance commensurate with the status, income and standard of living of her husband,” the August 4 order read.
Marriage, separation, maintenance claim
The woman stated that she married her estranged husband in May 2017 according to Hindu rites and ceremonies. However, matrimonial disputes forced her to leave the matrimonial home, after which she started living with her sister. She later approached the family court seeking maintenance.
The woman, represented by advocate Raj Kumar Singh, submitted that although the family court awarded her maintenance of only Rs 10,000 per month, the amount awarded was wholly inadequate and disproportionate to her husband’s income and financial status.
She claimed that at the time of filing of the maintenance proceedings, her estranged husband was working in the State Bank of India (SBI) and was drawing a monthly salary of approximately Rs 83,154. She claimed that the family court committed an error in taking into consideration the alleged liability of her husband towards the maintenance of his mother.
Justice Alok Mahra found that the woman, although qualified, has no stable income presently.
The woman added that her husband’s father is a pensioner receiving approximately Rs 30,000 per month, which was sufficient to maintain his mother. Her husband has no other substantial financial liabilities warranting the award of such a meagre amount of maintenance, she added.
On the other hand, the husband, represented by advocate Bhuwan Bhatt, argued that his gross salary of Rs 83,154 was reduced to a take-home salary of around Rs 53,000 after statutory deductions and repayment of festival and vehicle loans. He contended that these loans had been taken during the marriage for the family’s benefit and were rightly considered by the family court.
The man also claimed that his estranged wife is a highly qualified lady possessing the qualifications of MSc and BEd. and had been working as a teacher in a private institution before the marriage. He claimed that her bank statements disclosed several monetary deposits indicating that she is earning and is capable of maintaining herself.
The woman claimed, on the other hand, that she is ready to resume the marriage but her husband has refused to take her back to the matrimonial home. She admitted that she is well qualified but claimed that she is presently unemployed and has no independent source of livelihood.
Referring to her bank statement, she clarified that the deposits in her bank account came from her parents and did not represent any independent income.
‘No proof of woman’s stable income’
The court found that the woman is the man’s legally wedded wife and the man is an officer with State Bank of India and is earning a regular salary.
Noting that the man’s father is a pensioner and his two brothers are employed in government service, the court added, “Therefore, the plea of heavy family liabilities is not sufficient to reduce or avoid his statutory obligation to maintain his wife under Section 125 CrPC”.
The court also found that no evidence has been placed on record to showcase that the woman has any stable or sufficient independent source of income, but the husband has admitted before the family court that his own monthly personal expenditure is approximately Rs 15,000.
“Having regard to the income and financial capacity of respondent number two (husband), the standard of living to which the revisionist (woman) is entitled, and the principles governing grant of maintenance under Section 125 CrPC, this court is of the considered opinion that the maintenance awarded by the family court requires enhancement”, it observed.
Accordingly, the high court set aside the family court’s November 2021 order enhancing the monthly maintenance from Rs 10,000 to Rs 15,000.
The court noted that the man's father was a pensioner and that the man had admitted before the family court that his monthly personal expenses were around Rs 15,000. (AI-generated image) 
Justice Alok Mahra found that the woman, although qualified, has no stable income presently.
Share
