Allahabad High Court

SMT ARCHANAversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

Decided: 17 March 2026
Bench: HARVIR SINGH

Holding

Interest on a fixed deposit is not a source of income, and the husband is liable to pay the wife one‑quarter of his salary as maintenance.

Summary

The revisionist, an unemployed woman with a B.Pharm diploma, challenged the Family Court's order rejecting her claim for maintenance, arguing that the interest earned on a Rs. 14 lakh fixed deposit gifted by her father (or husband) does not constitute income. The Additional Principal Judge had held that the interest was her income, while the revisionist contended that only actual earnings from employment or business count as income. The court examined whether interest on a fixed deposit can be treated as a source of income for maintenance purposes and considered the applicability of stridhan principles. Relying on Supreme Court precedents, the court concluded that interest on deposits is not a real source of income and that the husband must pay the wife one‑quarter of his salary as maintenance. Consequently, the revision was disposed of, directing the husband to debit the stipulated amount into the wife’s account.

Issues considered

Whether interest earned on a fixed deposit gifted to the wife constitutes income for the purpose of maintenance under family law.
Whether the wife, being an income tax payer with no employment, is entitled to maintenance.
Whether the husband's salary can be partially assigned (one‑quarter) to the wife as maintenance.
Whether a gift (stridhan) from the father/husband can be treated as income for the wife.

Subjects

maintenance
family law
income determination
fixed deposit
revision
stridhan
spousal maintenance

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 4650 of 2024

Smt Archana
.....Revisionist(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite
Party(s)

Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Prakash Chandra Srivastava, Vishnu
Prakash, Mamta Maurya, Ram Yash
Maurya
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Sujan Singh

AFR

Court No. - 86

HON'BLE HARVIR SINGH, J.

1. Rejoinder affidavit filed today in the court, is taken on record

2. The instant criminal revision has been filed against the order dated
5.6.2024 passed by learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court No. 4,
Agra, by which claim of the revisionist for maintenance has been rejected,
whereas the son of revisionist and opposite party No. 2 namely, Master
Kavya has been awarded maintenance at the rate of Rs. 12,000/- per month
from the date of application, till he attains majority.

3. Learned counsel for the for the revisionist submits that the revisionist is an
unemployed lady, having no source of income and is surviving on the
income of her parents. It has also been submitted by learned counsel for the
revisionist that the revisionist is having diploma in the B. Pharma but is not
serving anywhere on the basis of the said certificate of B. Pharma.

4. Learned counsel also submitted that learned Additional Principal Judge,
Family Court had dismissed the claim of the revisionist on the ground that
the revisionist is an income tax payee and, therefore, generates sufficient
income for survival and further submitted that the said income, which is
being generated by getting interest from the fixed deposit receipts, are in the
joint name of the husband and wife, i.e., revisionist and opposite party No. 2
and the said FDR was made from the financial resources of the father of the
revisionist just after 10-15 days of the marriage, which was considered to be
Stridhan and therefore, if any interest is generated on annual basis from the
said FDR, the same cannot be treated to be source of income for any
CRLR No. 4650 of 2024
2

individual, unless and until the individual herself or himself generates the
said income either by way of securing employment or service or business
etc. but merely because substantial amount has been fixed as FDR and some
interest is being generated from the said FDR, cannot be categorized as
income. Moreover, it has been contended by learned counsel for the
revisionist that the said FDR was made from the financial resources of the
father of the revisionist. Learned counsel for the revisionist also submits that
there is a joint bank account operated by husband and wife, but the same has
become dormant due to non transaction for substantial period. Learned
counsel further submitted that the presumption of the learned Family Court
that the interest accrued on the FDR is the source of income, cannot be
sustained in the eye of law unless and until there is a separate identified and
qualified income from any other source, such as salary, business etc.
Learned counsel for the revisionist further submitted that opposite party No.
2 is Senior Branch Manager in Punjab National Bank posted in Tamilnadu
and therefore, the income of opposite party No. 2 is clear, unambiguous and
quantified, thus, there cannot be any dispute or ambiguity, as far as the
salary of an individual is concerned.

5. Learned counsel for the revisionist also submitted that the findings arrived
at by learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court are perverse and
contrary to the record.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 submitted that the
findings arrived at by learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court are
in accordance with law, as much as the interest, which is being generated on
yearly basis, is the part of the income and therefore, the same cannot be
discarded, while calculating the income of the revisionist from different
sources. Learned counsel for opposite party No. 2 further submitted that the
revisionist is a qualified lady and is capable of generating income from the
degree, which she is having at her end. Learned counsel further submitted
that the father of the revisionist is also running business in its premises, who
is residing at the first floor and is having shops at the ground floor and
therefore, is having sufficient income and further submitted that the
revisionist also contributes in the said business of father and is also having
joint account in the name of her mother, which is being operated by none
other than the revisionist, as the mother of the revisionist is not that much
qualified to operate the bank account.

7. Having considered the rival contentions and the fact that it can be seen
that if a person is having F. D. R., in the instant case the F. D. R. of Rs.
14,00,000/- was purportedly gifted by the father of the revisionist, but was
disputed that the same was gifted by the husband of the revisionist at the
CRLR No. 4650 of 2024
3

time of marriage and therefore a conclusion can be drawn that any father
would like to gift her daughter anything, which is beneficial for her future
and it has also come on record and it is admitted position that, father of the
revisionist is having sufficient income. The allegation that the husband gave
Rs. 14,00,000/- to the revisionist for the said F. D. R., is not supported by
any documentary evidence, such as transfer of the money from one account
to another account. However, considering the fact that some income is
generated from the interest accrued on the F. D. R., is not sufficient to arrive
at the conclusion that the revisionist is having sufficient source of income. It
is settled law that the source of income can only be considered real and
substantial to the extent that any person is either serving somewhere and
getting salary in lieu thereof or is having business at his or her end to
generate the said income, such business could be either by any firm,
company or trade etc. but mere getting interest on deposits, cannot be
considered as source of income. the F. D. R. is in the form of a financial
security to meet out any unforeseen expenditure or to develop the sufficient
means of living, such as, accommodation, building a house or to start with a
small business, when all other sources have either failed or have come to an
end. Therefore, the findings arrived at by learned Additional Principal Judge,
Family Court, Agra are erroneous.

8. Under the circumstances and in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble
Apex Court in the case of Shamima Farooqui Versus Shahid Khan
reported in AIR 2015 SC 2025 and Kalyan Dey Chowdhury Versus Rita
Dey Chowdhury Nee Nandy (2017) 14 SCC 200, it is directed that
opposite party no. 2 is liable to pay a sum equivalent to his 1 / 4 salary, to
the revisionist. It is also directed that the revisionist shall inform Punjab
National Bank, where the husband is working, that she has an independent
bank account in her name and 1 / 4 salary shall be debited from the account
of opposite party no. 2 every month in the account of the revisionist.

9. The account statement was not placed on record by the revisionist, as she
was operating account of her mother as it has also come on record that the
mother is not capable of running the account and therefore, there is no bar
that a daughter cannot operate the account of her mother, if the mother is
getting some income from different sources.

10. With the aforesaid observations, this revision is disposed of finally.

March 18, 2026
HR
(Harvir Singh,J.)

Digitally signed by :-
HEMANT RANJAN
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…