Allahabad HC: Wife's Paycheck No Shield Against Maintenance If Lifestyles Clash

In a ruling that reinforces the protective intent of maintenance laws, the Allahabad High Court dismissed a husband's plea to overturn a family court's order directing him to pay Rs 15,000 per month to his wife. Justice Madan Pal Singh upheld the award under Section 125 CrPC , stressing that a wife's job doesn't automatically disqualify her when incomes diverge sharply.

From Matrimonial Bliss to Courtroom Battle

Ravinder Singh Bisht (husband) and Smt. Prabhjot Kaur (wife) are legally married, but their union soured, leading Kaur to file for maintenance in 2019 before the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court No. 1, Ghaziabad . On January 4, 2025 , the court ordered Bisht to pay Rs 15,000 monthly from the application's date. Bisht challenged this via Criminal Revision No. 1637 of 2025, arguing Kaur's financial independence made it unjust.

The dispute traces back to Kaur allegedly leaving the matrimonial home voluntarily, refusing to care for Bisht's elderly parents, and shirking obligations. Bisht claimed he quit his job for family duties, saddled with debts.

Husband's Defense: 'She's Earning Big—Why Pay?'

Bisht's counsel highlighted Kaur's 2018 Form-16 showing Rs 11.28 lakh annual salary, painting her as educated and self-sufficient. They argued her exit was willful, absolving him of duty, and his own finances were strained by parental care and liabilities.

Wife Strikes Back: 'Your JP Morgan Riches Tell the Tale'

Kaur's side countered that Bisht hid his true wealth. Trial court records showed his own admission of earning ~Rs 40 lakh yearly at J.P. Morgan from 2018-2020. They urged the court to ignore her earnings amid the "glaring disparity" in status and income, insisting employment alone can't bar relief.

Dissecting the Law: Beyond Bare Employment

Justice Singh meticulously weighed the evidence, noting Bisht failed to prove diminished earnings or financial hardship—calling his claims a " bald assertion " sans proof. Even accepting Kaur's income, it paled against matrimonial comforts tied to Bisht's high-flying past.

Drawing on Supreme Court precedents, the bench clarified: Shailja & Ors. v. Khobbanna (2018) 12 SCC 199 holds a wife's earnings don't disentitle her if insufficient for prior lifestyle. Rajnesh v. Neha (2021) 2 SCC 324 echoes this, prioritizing dignity over destitution alone. Section 125 CrPC aims to ensure wives live "with dignity, consistent with the status of the husband," not just avoid poverty.

The court rejected outright that " mere employment or earning of the wife is, by itself, a ground to deny maintenance ," spotlighting the "substantial disparity in the earning capacity and financial status."

Key Observations

"Even assuming that opposite party no. 2 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 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 contention of the revisionist regarding his alleged financial constraints and liabilities has remained a bald assertion ."

No Reversal: Order Stands Firm

The High Court found the family court's Rs 15,000 award "just, reasonable, and commensurate" with Bisht's status, free of perversity or irregularity . The revision was dismissed on February 5, 2026 .

This decision signals to future cases: courts will probe lifestyle gaps over simplistic "she earns" arguments, bolstering Section 125's role in equitable post-separation support amid India's evolving family dynamics.