Back
Allahabad HC Upholds Rs 15,000 Maintenance For Wife Niharika Singh, Calls It Not A
Dismisses Both Spouses' Challenges, Affirms Family Court's Maintenance Award Under Section 125 CrPC
In a significant ruling that underscores the welfare-oriented character of maintenance law, the has dismissed cross-revisions filed by a husband and wife against a Family Court order granting ₹15,000 per month to the wife. The Court firmly held that maintenance under is a measure of meant to prevent , not to confer an “” or create a “ or ” for the claimant.
Justice Lakshmi Kant Shukla, presiding over a single bench, upheld the order of the Principal Judge, , which directed husband Ankit Singh to pay ₹15,000 monthly to his wife Niharika Singh from the date of filing her maintenance application. Both parties had challenged the quantum—Ankit seeking its cancellation and Niharika demanding an enhancement.
Background: A Clash of Incomes and Expectations
The couple’s marital discord led Niharika to file a petition under Section 125 CrPC in 2022, claiming she was unable to maintain herself. The Family Court, after evaluating evidence, fixed the husband’s monthly income at ₹50,000 and awarded maintenance of ₹15,000 per month.
Ankit Singh, a B.Tech graduate and co-founder and CEO of , contested the order on two fronts. First, he argued that Niharika was living separately without sufficient reason. Second, he claimed she was capable of self-maintenance, pointing to her B.Ed. degree and her past employment as a teacher at , where salary slips from August to October 2021 showed an income of ₹45,000 per month.
Niharika, on the other hand, sought enhancement. She asserted that Ankit’s true income was around ₹4 lakh per month, not the ₹50,000 accepted by the trial court. She highlighted that the company’s authorized share capital was ₹50 lakh and paid-up capital was ₹20 lakh, arguing that this demonstrated substantial revenue generation.
Arguments Before the High Court
For the Wife (Enhancement Revision):
Counsel for Niharika submitted that the Family Court had erred in assessing Ankit’s income. Despite documentary evidence showing that Ankit, along with Sachin Kumar, had been directors of InnoApps Technologies since July 2016 and were described as co-founders and CEOs, the court accepted his self-serving claim of a mere ₹50,000 salary. The wife argued that the company’s capital structure and the husband’s position should have led to a higher income estimate.
For the Husband (Challenge Revision):
Ankit’s counsel countered that Niharika was an educated woman with a B.Ed. degree who had worked at a reputed school. He produced an employee list and salary slips to demonstrate her past income, arguing she was not entitled to any maintenance. Additionally, he contended that she had left the marital home without justification.
Wife’s Rebuttal:
Niharika’s counsel responded that the salary slips pertained only to three months in 2021, and no evidence showed she continued to earn that income when she filed the maintenance petition in 2022. She was residing at her parental home in Jaunpur, not Ghaziabad, further undermining the husband’s claim of her ongoing employment.
Legal Analysis: Share Capital Not Proof of Personal Income
The High Court meticulously examined the evidence and rejected both parties’ extreme claims. On the wife’s contention that the husband’s income should be inferred from the company’s capital, Justice Shukla observed:
“Merely because the authorised share capital of the aforesaid company is shown to be Rs. 50,00,000/- and its paid-up share capital, as reflected in the balance sheet, is Rs. 20,00,000/-, no presumption can be drawn that the company is generating such substantial income as would enable it to pay a monthly salary of Rs. 4,00,000/- to one of its employees.”
The Court found no reason to disturb the trial court’s assessment of Ankit’s monthly income at ₹50,000, based on the salary slip he had placed on record.
Regarding the wife’s earning capacity, the Court noted that the husband’s documents only covered a brief period in 2021 and did not establish her income at the time of filing. The Court accepted that she was no longer employed as a teacher.
The : A Guiding Factor, Not an Inflexible Rule
Referring to the ’s decision in Kalyan Dey Chowdhury v. Rita Dey Chowdhury Nee Nandy (2017), the High Court acknowledged that ordinarily 25% of the husband’s net income may serve as a reasonable benchmark for spousal maintenance. However, it emphasized that this percentage is only a guiding factor.
Applying this principle, the Court noted that even on the assessed income of ₹50,000, the awarded ₹15,000 per month constituted 30% of the husband’s income—already substantially above the . Therefore, no enhancement was warranted.
Key Observations: Maintenance as , Not Enrichment
Justice Shukla delivered a powerful exposition of the object behind Section 125 CrPC, drawing from the other sources cited in the judgment:
“The object of Section 125 Cr.P.C. is to prevent and and to ensure that a wife, child or parent who is unable to maintain himself or herself is not left without the basic means of subsistence. The provision is essentially a measure of intended to provide a reasonable and dignified means of support to the person entitled to maintenance.”
The Court further clarified:
“At the same time, the provision is not intended to confer an or to serve as a source of enrichment for the person claiming maintenance. … Section 125 Cr.P.C. is a measure for securing sustenance and dignity and not a means of creating a or in favour of the claimant.”
These observations serve as a crucial reminder to trial courts and litigants that while maintenance must be adequate to prevent , it must be calibrated to the husband’s actual financial capacity and the wife’s genuine needs.
Court’s Decision: Both Revisions Dismissed
Finding no illegality or perversity in the Family Court’s order, the High Court dismissed both Criminal Revision No. 542 of 2025 (filed by Ankit Singh) and Criminal Revision No. 6290 of 2024 (filed by Niharika Singh). The maintenance of ₹15,000 per month stands confirmed.
The ruling reinforces the principle that maintenance proceedings under Section 125 CrPC are not a vehicle for disproportionate claims but a means to ensure that a dependent spouse is not reduced to . By upholding a reasonable award and rejecting both the husband’s attempt to avoid liability and the wife’s bid for a , the High Court has struck a fair balance—one that aligns with the legislative intent of .
