SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(All) 550

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
PRAVEEN KUMAR GIRI, J.
Smt Archana And Another - Revisionists 
Versus
State of U.P. and Another - Opposite Parties
Criminal Revision No. 659 of 2026
Decided On : 22-05-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Revisionists : Uttam Singh.
For the Opposite Parties : Bhavesh Singh Jadaun, G.A., Satya Dheer Singh Jadaun.

Maintenance for dependents should be calculated as a fixed proportion (one-fourth) of the earning spouse's gross income and awarded from the date of application. Courts may direct employers to deduct these payments directly from the salary to ensure consistent and timely financial support.

Headnote:(A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 125(2) - Interim maintenance application - Maintenance is to be awarded from date of filing of application to prevent financial hardship for dependents - Judicial discretion to define commencement date should prioritize the date of application. (Paras 3, 4)

(B) Quantum of maintenance - Maintenance amount should typically be one-fourth of the gross income of the earning spouse - Amount granted must be sufficient to cover basic needs, housing, and medical expenses. (Paras 6, 8)

(C) Enforcement of maintenance - Courts may direct an employer to deduct the maintenance amount directly from the salary of the spouse for transfer to the claimant to ensure compliance and timely support. (Paras 7, 8)

Facts of the case:
The claimants challenged an order granting a meager amount of interim maintenance, requesting an enhancement and pleading for the amount to be fixed based on the earning spouse's actual salary. It was contended that the previous award was inadequate for basic sustenance and necessary medical treatment.

Findings of Court:
The court determined the previous maintenance amount was insufficient and unjustifiable. It affirmed that maintenance should be paid from the date of application and directed the employer to deduct a portion of the salary for direct payment to the claimants.

Issues: Whether the interim maintenance awarded was adequate; whether it should be calculated from the date of application; and whether direct salary deduction is an appropriate mechanism for enforcement.

Ratio Decidendi: To prevent destitution and address the financial vulnerability of a dependent, maintenance must be awarded from the date of the application. A standard of one-fourth of the spouse's income serves as a reasonable benchmark, and direct salary deduction ensures compliance and timely financial distribution.

Result: Revision allowed with directions for enhanced maintenance and procedural adjustments for recovery.

Table of Content
1. parties argument regarding maintenance quantum and the date of commencement. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5)
2. judicial assessment of interim maintenance adequacy and revisional powers. (Para 6)
3. directives for employer-based salary deduction for maintenance payments. (Para 7 , 8)
4. disposition of the criminal revision petition. (Para 9)

JUDGMENT :

PRAVEEN KUMAR GIRI, J.

1. Heard Sri Uttam Singh, learned counsel for the revisionist, Sri Bhavesh Singh Jadaun, learned counsel for O.P. No.2 and Sri Pankaj Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the instant criminal revision has been preferred with the relief which has been mentioned in the prayer clause. The relief mentioned in the prayer clause of the revision is delineated below:-

"The relief sought by the present Criminal Revision is that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to set aside the interim maintenance Order dated 07.02.2025 passed by the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, District Kanpur Dehat in Case No.97 of 2024 (Archana and another Vs. Amardeep) under Section 125 Cr.P.C. by which Ld. Principal Judge Family Court Kanpur Dehat has granted the interim maintenance Rs.1000/- per month to the only revisionist no.1 and nothing has been granted to the Minor Child Revisionist No.2 so enhance the interim maintenance in favor of the Revisionist No.1 Rs.15000/- in place of the Rs.1000/- per month and also grant the interim maintenance to the minor child revisionist no.2 Rs.5000/- per month from the date of the application during the pendency of the Application Under Section 125 Cr.P.C. or may further pass such other and further orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the present case, in the interest of justice."

3. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that O.P. No.2/husband is working as an Assistant Teacher in a government school and getting salary about Rs.1 lakh. He further submits that as per law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kalyan Dey Chowdhury vs. Rita Dey Chowdhury Nee Nandy , AIR 2017 SC 2383, 1/4th of the income of the husband has to be granted to the wife as maintenance amount but vide impugned order dated 07.02.2025 only Rs.1000/- as interim maintenance amount has been granted to the wife/revisionist no.1 whereas no amount of interim maintenance for minor son/revisionist no.2 has been granted. He further submits that as per the provisions of Section 125(2) Cr.P.C., amount of maintenance or interim maintenance may be granted by passing order on the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. either from the date of application or from the date of order. The relevant provision of Section 125(2) is being delineated below :-

"125(2) Any such allowance for the maintenance or interim maintenance and expenses of proceeding shall be payable from the date of the order, or, if so ordered, from the date of the application for maintenance or interim maintenance and expenses of proceeding, as the case may be."

4. Learned counsel for the revisionist further submits that as per paragraphs 89, 91 and 93 of the judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Rajnesh vs. Neha and another , (2021) 2 Supreme Court Cases 324, the amount of maintenance shall be granted from the date of application. Paragraphs 89, 91 and 93 of Rajnesh's case (supra) are being delineated below :-

"89 . Even though a judicial discretion is conferred upon the Court to grant maintenance either from the date of application or from the date of the order in Section 125(2) Code of Criminal Procedure, it would be appropriate to grant maintenance from the date of application in all cases, including Section 125 Code of Criminal Procedure In the practical working of the provisions relating to maintenance, we find that there is significant delay in disposal of the applications for interim maintenance for years on end. It would therefore be in the interests of justice and fair play that ma

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top