Back
2026 Supreme(All) 897
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Garima Prashad, J.
Smt. Suman Verma and another - Revisionists
Versus
State of U.P. and another - Opposite Parties
Criminal Revision No. - 5971 of 2024
Decided On : 08-01-2026
Important Points
Subject
Family Law - Maintenance
Act Referred
Headnote
(B) Maintenance - Rights of spouse - Mere educational qualification or potential earning capacity does not disentitle a wife from claiming maintenance - Burden of proof regarding gainful employment lies with the party asserting it - Maintenance must be adequate to ensure a lifestyle consistent with the status of the spouse. (Paras 10, 11, 13, 15)
(C) Appellate interference - When the lower court fails to correctly appreciate financial evidence, misinterprets the law regarding entitlements, and arrives at conclusions without supporting evidence of actual employment, the order may be set aside and remanded for fresh adjudication. (Para 18)
Facts of the case:
A wife and minor child sought enhancement of a maintenance order passed by the trial court, which had denied the wife maintenance while granting a minimal amount for the child. The husband contested the claim, alleging the wife was educated and earning through independent work, and that she had abandoned the matrimonial home voluntarily, thereby disqualifying her from maintenance under the relevant code. The trial court had accepted the husband's plea regarding the wife’s capacity to earn.
Findings of Court:
The court held that the trial court erroneously interpreted the law by treating the wife's refusal to return to the matrimonial home after a restitution decree as a statutory disqualification. Furthermore, the reliance on the wife’s Educational background and potential for work was insufficient to deny maintenance, as the husband failed to produce evidence of actual income. The court also observed that the maintenance awarded to the child was inadequate considering the husband's gross salary.
Issues: The central issues were whether a wife’s educational qualifications and potential to earn preclude her from claiming maintenance, and whether living separately after a failed restitution attempt constitutes a legal ground to deny support under the relevant statute.
Ratio Decidendi: Maintenance is a measure of social justice designed to prevent destitution. The obligation of a spouse to maintain their partner is paramount. A spouse cannot deny this obligation by merely pointing to the applicant's educational background or potential capacity. Unless there is objective evidence of actual gainful employment that provides self-sufficiency, the right to maintenance remains intact to ensure the applicant lives with dignity.
Result: Revision allowed; impugned order set aside and matter remanded back to the lower court for fresh determination.
For the Revisionist : Deepak Kumar Yadav
For the Opposite Party : G.A., Shashank Tripathi
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of maintenance claims, factual background, and conflicting arguments regarding spousal desertion and financial capacity. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 2. educational qualifications of a wife do not automatically negate her right to claim maintenance under section 125 cr.p.c. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 3. mandatory obligation of the husband to maintain his wife and minor child, requiring redetermination of maintenance awards. (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 20) |
JUDGMENT :
GARIMA PRASHAD, J.
1. Heard Sri Deepak Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the revisionist, learned A.G.A. for the State and Sri Kumar Dhananjay, learned counsel holding brief of Sri Shashank Tripathi, learned counsel for the opposite party No.2.
2. The present criminal revision has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 03.10.2024 passed by the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bulandhshahr under Section 125 Cr.P.C. whereby the application for maintenance towards the revisionist No.1/wife of the opposite party no.2 has been rejected and an amount of Rs. 3,000/- per month has been directed to be paid by the opposite party No.2/husband of the revisionist No.1 towards the maintenance of the minor son (Master Tilak Verma) only. The revisionist no.1 has sought enhancement of maintenance of Rs. 15,000/- per month towards herself and up to Rs. 10,000/- towards her minor son/revisionist No.2 from the date of application.
3. Learned counsel for the revisionists submits that the marriage between the parties was solemnized on 20.05.2006 according to Hindu rites and rituals. From the wedlock, a son (Master Tilak Verma) was born who is presently about fifteen years old and is residing with the revisionist no.1/wife. As per the revisionist no.1, she was driven out of the matrimonial home along with her son in the year 2015 due to physical and mental cruelty including beatings and harassment. An earlier petition for maintenance had been disposed of on 07.11.2005 by the Family Court, Bulandshahr in view of a compromise which had been entered between the parties on the assurance of opposite party No.2 that he would keep the revisionist No.1/wife properly, and accordingly she had returned to the matrimonial home and had withdrawn the case. Again on 09.01.2020, she was beaten and expelled from the matrimonial home along with her son on the demand of dowry. As per the revisionist No.1/wife, she is educated but a homemaker having no vocational skills such as tailoring, embroidery, knitting, and thus has no independent source of income. She is currently residing at her parental home and is financially dependent on them. As per the revisionist No.1/wife, the opposite party No.2/husband is employed as a Class-IV employee at Primary School, Saitha, Block Gulawathi, District Bulandshahr, and earns approximately Rs. 35,000/- per month as salary. She has accordingly sought Rs. 15,000/- per month for herself and Rs. 10,000/- per month for her son towards maintenance in the Application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. filed on 19.04.2021.
4. Learned counsel for the revisionists submits that it has been wrongly held that the revisionist No.1/wife is living separately without sufficient cause. It is submitted that such finding has been given on the ground that the revisionist No.1/wife had refused to go back during the proceedings instituted under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act by the opposite party No.2/husband. It is further submitted that learned Family Court Judge has rejected the plea of the revisionist No.1/wife on the ground that she had not filed any cruelty or dowry related case or any complaint regarding assault against the husband and as such given a wrong finding that she was living separately of her own volition for want of sufficient cause and hence was not entitled to receive any maintenance from the opposite party No.2/husband. Learned counsel for the revisionists submits that the revisionist No. 1/wife has no source of income
