Allahabad HC: Railway Engineer’s ₹20k Maintenance Not Excessive, Late Forgery Plea No Bar

In a significant ruling that balances the urgency of maintenance proceedings with procedural fairness, the Allahabad High Court has held that a husband’s belated plea alleging document forgery by his wife cannot force a trial court to halt the pronouncement of a maintenance order under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Court upheld a monthly maintenance award of ₹20,000 to the wife of a Divisional Engineer in the Indian Railways, reasoning that the quantum was neither arbitrary nor excessive given the husband’s admitted salary.

Justice Lakshmi Kant Shukla, sitting singly, dismissed the criminal revision filed by Umesh Vidyarthi against the Family Court, Sonbhadra’s order, which had granted maintenance of ₹15,000 per month from the date of application and ₹20,000 per month from the date of the order itself.

The Chessboard of Maintenance and Allegations

The dispute arose from a maintenance petition filed by Madhubala against her husband Umesh Vidyarthi, a Divisional Engineer in the Railways. The Family Court, after examining the evidence, partly allowed her application and fixed maintenance at ₹15,000 per month retrospectively and ₹20,000 per month from the date of the order – 30 July 2025.

Challenging this order before the High Court, the husband raised two primary objections. First, he argued that the quantum was disproportionate to his actual income. He claimed his basic pay was ₹50,000 per month and his total income hovered around ₹60,000, so a maintenance of ₹20,000 was excessive. He further contended that his wife, an MBA graduate who had previously been employed, had voluntarily left her job solely to claim maintenance, despite being capable of self-support.

His second, more technical contention relied on the pendency of an application under Section 340 CrPC. He alleged that his wife had fabricated and forged documents relied upon in the maintenance case. Pointing to a 2023 ruling of the same High Court in Amit Bajpai v. State of U.P. , the husband’s counsel insisted that the trial court ought to have decided that forgery complaint before proceeding to pronounce the maintenance order.

The Wife’s Counter‑Punch

The State and the wife’s counsel strenuously opposed the revision. They highlighted the trial court’s recorded findings that the husband had admitted his basic pay as ₹50,000 and that his monthly salary was ₹74,513. With annual increments and dearness allowance, they argued, his present income would likely exceed ₹80,000, making the ₹20,000 maintenance award entirely reasonable under the guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court in Rajnesh v. Neha .

On the Section 340 CrPC front, the wife’s side pointed to the timeline. The forgery complaint was filed on 22 July 2025 – well after the final arguments had concluded and the case had been reserved for judgment. The application itself bore endorsements that stated the matter was at the stage of final adjudication. The husband had every opportunity to raise his forgery claim earlier; raising it at the last minute was a dilatory tactic.

Why a Late Section 340 Plea Cannot Freeze Maintenance

Justice Shukla rejected the husband’s reliance on the Amit Bajpai judgment, finding that the facts were entirely distinguishable. In that case, the Section 340 application had been filed much earlier in the proceedings and was still pending when the trial court delivered its order without consideration. Here, the application came only after the hearing was over and the judgment was imminent.

The Court underscored the independent nature of proceedings under Section 340 CrPC. “The proceedings contemplated under Section 340 CrPC are independent in nature and are not connected with the adjudication of proceedings under Section 125 CrPC,” the judgment stated. “Merely because an application under Section 340 CrPC is filed at the stage when the matter has already been reserved for judgment would not ipso facto oblige the Trial Court to defer pronouncement of judgment.”

Thus, the trial court committed no error by proceeding to pronounce its judgment without first deciding the belated forgery application. The husband remained free to pursue that application independently in accordance with law.

No Perversity in ₹20,000 Maintenance – The Bottom Line

On the quantum of maintenance, the High Court found no perversity or illegality in the trial court’s order. The husband’s own admissions placed his salary above ₹74,000. The wife’s MBA qualification did not automatically disqualify her from receiving maintenance, especially when the trial court had examined the couple’s financial status holistically. “This Court does not find the maintenance awarded at the rate of Rs. 20,000/- per month to be arbitrary, unreasonable or excessive warranting interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction,” the Court concluded.

The revision petition was dismissed in its entirety, leaving the husband to pay the maintenance as directed by the Family Court and to litigate his forgery allegations separately. The judgment sends a clear message: while fraud allegations must be investigated, they cannot be used as a trump card to stall the immediate relief of maintenance that the law intends to provide.

[Disclaimer: This article is based on the judgment and available records. It is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.]