Allahabad High Court

MOHIT KUMAR WADHWAversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

Decided: 17 March 2026
Bench: MADAN PAL SINGH

Holding

The maintenance award is reduced to Rs 7,500 per month, i.e., 25% of the husband's assessed net income.

Summary

The husband, Mohit Kumar Wadhwa, filed a criminal revision under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code challenging a Family Court order that directed him to pay Rs 20,000 per month to his wife and later Rs 25,000 per month. He contended that his actual earnings as a labourer in his father's shop were only Rs 8,000‑9,000 per month and that the ordered amount was excessive. The High Court, noting the absence of documentary proof, assessed his income at Rs 30,000 per month and applied the Supreme Court principle that maintenance may be capped at 25% of the husband’s net income. Accordingly, the Court calculated a reasonable maintenance of Rs 7,500 per month, which is 25% of the assessed income. It held that the earlier award of Rs 25,000 was disproportionate and ordered it reduced to Rs 7,500 payable from the date of the application. The Court also directed that any arrears already paid be adjusted and the remaining balance be cleared in fifteen equal instalments, with the first instalment due by 10 April 2026. The revision was therefore partly allowed, modifying the maintenance quantum.

Issues considered

What is the appropriate quantum of maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. given the husband's actual income?
Can the maintenance order be reduced when the husband's income is lower than the amount awarded?
How should the court assess income in the absence of documentary evidence?

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 125

Subjects

maintenance
Section 125 CrPC
husband-wife
income assessment
criminal revision
family law
Supreme Court precedent

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 4739 of 2025

Mohit Kumar Wadhwa
.....Revisionist(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite Party(s)

Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Amrendra Nath Rai, Nidhi Rai
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Santosh Kumar Gupta

Court No. - 85

HON'BLE MADAN PAL SINGH, J.

1. Heard Sri Amrendra Nath Rai, learned counsel for the revisionist, Sri
Santosh Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2, and
the learned A.G.A. for the State. The record has also been perused.

2. This criminal revision has been filed by the revisionist seeking to set
aside the order dated 12.06.2025 passed by the learned Principal
Judge, Family Court, Sambhal at Chandausi in Case No. 714 of 2023,
under Section 125 Cr.P.C., whereby the learned trial court directed the
revisionist to pay Rs. 20,000/- per month to opposite party no. 2 from
the date of application and Rs. 25,000/- per month from the date of the
order.

3. The sole argument advanced by the learned counsel for the revisionist
is that the revisionist is working as a labourer in a shop owned by his
father and earns only Rs. 8,000/- to Rs. 9,000/- per month. It is further
submitted that the revisionist has no regular source of income and has
other liabilities to discharge. It is also contended that the amount
awarded by the learned trial court is not commensurate with the
income of the revisionist and is in violation of the law laid down by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajnesh vs. Neha and Another, (2021) 2
SCC 324; Kalyan Dey Chowdhury vs. Rita Dey Chowdhury Nee
Nandy, AIR 2017 SC 2383; and Kulbhushan Kumar vs. Raj Kumari,
(1970) 3 SCC 129.

4. Learned counsel for opposite party no. 2, as well as the learned
A.G.A., opposed the prayer and contended that, considering the
present inflation, the amount awarded by the learned trial court cannot
be said to be excessive or beyond the capacity of the revisionist. It was
further submitted that the revision lacks merit and is liable to be
dismissed.

5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions of
learned counsel for the parties, and the record of the case, including the
impugned order, it is an admitted fact that opposite party no. 2 is the
CRLR No. 4739 of 2025
2

legally wedded wife of the revisionist. So far as the income of the
revisionist is concerned, it is admitted that the revisionist is working as
an assistant in a shop owned by his father. Since there is no
documentary evidence regarding his exact income, this Court is
constrained to make a reasonable assessment of his income. In the
absence of reliable proof, his income is assessed at Rs. 1,000/- per day,
which comes to Rs. 30,000/- per month from all sources. Keeping in
view the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid
cases, it has been observed that maintenance may be granted up to the
extent of 25% of the husband’s net income. Accordingly, 25% of Rs.
30,000/- comes to Rs. 7,500/- per month.

6. In view of the above, this Court is of the opinion that the total
maintenance amount is not commensurate with the income of the
revisionist. It is true that it is the legal obligation of a husband to
maintain his wife and child; however, the amount of maintenance must
be reasonable and proportionate to his income. Therefore, the
maintenance awarded by the court below appears to be excessive and
deserves to be modified. Accordingly, it is reduced from Rs. 25,000/-
per month to Rs. 7,500/- per month, payable from the date of the
application.

7. Accordingly, the present criminal revision is partly allowed. The
amount of maintenance is reduced to Rs. 7,500/- per month, payable
from the date of the application.

8. It is made clear that the amount of maintenance shall be calculated in
terms of the present order. If the revisionist has already paid any
amount towards maintenance, the same shall be duly adjusted. In case
any arrears remain unpaid, the revisionist shall clear the same in fifteen
equal monthly instalments. The first instalment shall be paid on or
before 10th April, 2026, and the remaining instalments shall be paid on
or before the 15th day of each succeeding calendar month.
March 18, 2026
pks
(Madan Pal Singh,J.)

Digitally signed by :-
PANKAJ KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…