Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(All) 561

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
AJAY KUMAR-II, J.
Sadhana @ Shakshi and Another – Appellants
Versus
State of U.P. and Another – Respondents
Criminal Revision No. 223 of 2024, Criminal Revision No. 51 of 2024
Decided On : 15-05-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellants : S.P.S. Chauhan, Meenakshi Chauhan
For the Respondents: Abhinav Singh, Santosh Kumar Upadhyay, Vinod Kumar Upadhyay

Maintenance is a social justice remedy ensuring a dependent spouse and children lead a life of dignity. Educational qualification alone does not deny maintenance, and trial courts must stringently scrutinize financial disclosure affidavits to prevent the suppression of income and liabilities by the paying party.

Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 125 - Maintenance proceedings - Nature and Objective - Provision designed as a remedial measure to prevent vagrancy and destitution of dependent wives and children - Enforcement is a constitutional mandate for social justice and dignity. (Paras 13, 14, 15)

(B) Financial Disclosure in Maintenance - Affidavit of Assets and Liabilities - Trial courts must treat disclosure of income, liabilities, and dependency as a mandatory substantive requirement rather than a formal technicality - Evasive disclosures or intentional concealment of income to evade liability warrant immediate scrutiny by the court. (Paras 21, 22, 25, 35)

(C) Maintenance - Entitlement and Capability - Educational qualification of a spouse does not per se disentitle them from claiming support - Capability to work and actual employment are distinct concepts; mere capability does not justify denial of maintenance if no actual income is established. (Paras 16, 17, 18, 19)

Facts of the case:
A woman and her minor dependent filed for maintenance against the respondent. The trial court initially awarded a specific maintenance amount. The claimants sought enhancement on the grounds that the respondent, a gainfully employed professional, had suppressed his actual income and liabilities. The respondent filed a counter-challenge arguing that the claimant possessed higher educational qualifications and was independent, while also claiming financial burden for his own parents and sibling.

Findings of Court:
The court observed that the respondent intentionally suppressed his net income and made false claims regarding the dependency of his relatives, who were themselves recipients of regular pensions. The trial court had failed to exercise due diligence in assessing the financial disclosure, which led to an incorrect evaluation of the respondent’s capacity to pay support. The appellate court recalculated the maintenance liability, ensuring the amounts were commensurate with the respondent's verified income and the reasonable needs of the dependents.

Issues: Whether the educational qualification of a spouse is a valid ground for denying maintenance, and whether the respondent successfully concealed material financial facts to evade legal obligations.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that maintenance is a statutory right intended to ensure the claimant can live with dignity equivalent to their former marital lifestyle. It established that trial courts must rigorously examine mandatory financial disclosures to detect any calculative attempt to evade support obligations. A spouse’s educational attainment cannot be used as a shield to deny support in the absence of evidence of actual gainful employment.

Result: Revisionist claim for enhancement of maintenance allowed; counter-revision by the respondent dismissed; maintenance amounts enhanced.

Table of Content
1. procedural consolidation of revision petitions arising from the same order. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4)
2. wife's claim regarding maintenance enhancement due to husband's high income and dowry-related disputes. (Para 5 , 6 , 7)
3. husband's contention challenging maintenance on the basis of wife's professional qualifications and alleged desertion. (Para 8 , 9 , 10)
4. section 125 crpc is a social justice measure meant to prevent vagrancy and destitution. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15)
5. mere capability of the wife to earn does not disqualify her from claiming maintenance. (Para 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20)
6. mandatory obligation for parties to file truthful and exhaustive financial disclosure affidavits as per rajnesh guidelines. (Para 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 35)
7. maintenance quantum determination based on 25% of husband's net income for wife and 15% for children. (Para 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32)
8. directions for arrear payments and case finalization through modified maintenance orders. (Para 33 , 34 , 36 , 37)

JUDGMENT :

AJAY KUMAR-II, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for revisionists, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State and perused the record.

2. Criminal Revision No. 223 of 2024 has been filed by the Smt. Sadhana (wife) against the impugned order dated 01.12.2023 passed by Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Court No. 2, Bulandshahar in Maintenance Case No. 829 of 2019 ( Smt. Sadhna @ Sakshi and another vs. Jitendra Singh Som ) under section 125 Cr.P.C., Police Station Pahasu, District Bulandshahar, whereby the learned Court below has allowed the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. of the revisionists and the opposite party no. 2 has been directed to pay Rs. 8,000/- to the revision no. 1 and Rs. 12,000/- to the revisionist no. 2 from the date of filing of the application till passing of present impugned judgment and order and to pay Rs. 10,000/- per month to revisionist no. 1 and Rs. 15,000/- per month to the revisionist no. 2 as maintenance from the date of impugned judgment and order. The revisionists by means of present revisionist have prayed for enhancement of maintenance amount awarded by the Court below from Rs. 20,000/- to Rs. 75,000/- per month from the date of filing of application.

3. Criminal Revision No. 51 of 2024 has been filed by Jitendra Singh Som (Husband) with prayer to set aside the impugned judgment and order dated 01.12.2023 passed by Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Court No. 2, Bulandshahar in aforesaid Maintenance Case No. 829 of 2019 ( Smt. Sadhna @ Sakshi and another vs. Jitendra Singh Som ) under section 125 Cr.P.C., Police Station Pahasu, District Bulandshahar.

4. Since both criminal revisions are arising out of same impugned judgment and order dated 1.12.2023, therefore, these criminal revisions are being disposed of by a common order. Criminal Revision No. 223 of 2024 is the leading case for the purpose of judgment.

5. Learned counsel for the revisionists has submitted that marriage of opposite party no. 2 with the revisionist no. 1 is his (opposite party no. 2’s) second marriage and on demand of her in-laws, parents of revisionist no. 1 spent Rs. 12 lakhs in the marriage and had given all household items. However, opposite party no. 2 and his family members were not satisfied with the dowry given at the time of marriage and were demanding additional dowry of Rs. 10 lakhs and Swift Car and when the demand of additional dowry was not fulfilled, they started mental and physical harassment of the revisionist no. 1. The revisionist no. 1 was thrown out from her matrimonial house during her pregnancy period, on account of illicit relation of opposite party no. 2 with some other lady and non fulfillment of demand of additional dowry. The revisionist no. 2 was born out of their wedlock at the parental house of revisionist no. 1 on 29.12.2017. In this regard, the revisionist no. 1 has filed Criminal Case No. 481 of 2017, under