Allahabad High Court
ANKUR ALIAS ANKUR SINGHversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 2 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- MADAN PAL SINGH
Holding
Maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. must not exceed 25 % of the husband’s net income; consequently the original award of Rs 5,000 per month was excessive and was reduced to Rs 4,500 per month.
Summary
The revisionist, a labourer, challenged the Family Court’s order directing him to pay Rs 4,000 per month to his wife and Rs 1,000 to a third party under Section 125 Cr.P.C., claiming the amount was excessive given his modest earnings. The State opposed, arguing the award was reasonable in light of inflation. The High Court noted that, in the absence of documentary proof, the husband’s income could be presumed at about Rs 18,000 per month and that Supreme Court precedent limits maintenance to roughly 25 % of net income. Applying this principle, the Court held that the total award of Rs 5,000 exceeded the permissible 25 % (Rs 4,500) and therefore reduced the maintenance to Rs 4,500 per month (Rs 3,500 to the wife and Rs 1,000 to the third party). The revision was partly allowed, with directions for adjustment of any payments already made and a schedule for any arrears. The order was dated 18 March 2026.
Issues considered
- Whether the maintenance amount of Rs 5,000 per month under Section 125 Cr.P.C. is excessive in view of the husband’s income.
- Whether the maintenance award can be modified on revision when the amount exceeds the proportion of the husband’s net income.
- What proportion of a husband’s net income may be ordered as maintenance under prevailing Supreme Court jurisprudence.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 125
Subjects
- maintenance
- Section 125 Cr.P.C.
- criminal revision
- husband-wife
- income assessment
- modification of maintenance
- Allahabad High Court
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 5396 of 2025
Ankur Alias Ankur Singh
.....Revisionist(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 2 Others
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Shakil Ahmad
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 85
HON'BLE MADAN PAL SINGH, J.
1. Heard Sri Shakil Ahmad, learned counsel for the revisionist, learned
A.G.A. for the State, and perused the record. Despite service of notice, none
has appeared on behalf of opposite party no. 2.
2. This criminal revision has been filed by the revisionist seeking to set aside
the order dated 02-08-2025 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family
Court, Bijnor, in Criminal Complaint Case No. 377 of 2020, under Section
125 Cr.P.C., whereby the learned trial court directed the revisionist to pay
Rs. 4,000/- per month to opposite party no. 2 and Rs. 1,000/- per month to
opposite party no. 3 from the date of the application.
3. The sole argument advanced by the learned counsel for the revisionist is
that the revisionist is engaged in labour work, has no regular source of
income, and is solely dependent upon his parents for his livelihood. Hence,
the amount of maintenance awarded by the court below is excessive,
exorbitant, and not commensurate with the income of the revisionist.
4. Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer and contended that, considering the
present rate of 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, the 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 legally
wedded wife of the revisionist. So far as the income of the revisionist is
concerned, there is no documentary evidence on record. However, even if
the revisionist is considered to be a labourer, it would be reasonable to
assume that he earns approximately Rs. 600/- per day, amounting to about
Rs. 18,000/- per month. Keeping in view 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
CRLR No. 5396 of 2025
2
SC 2383; and Kulbhushan Kumar vs. Raj Kumari, (1970) 3 SCC 129, 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. 18,000/- comes to Rs.
4,500/- per month.
6. In view of the above, this Court is of the opinion that the total
maintenance amount of Rs. 5,000/- per month (Rs. 4,000/- to opposite party
no. 2 and Rs. 1,000/- to opposite party no. 3) 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; 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. Hence, it is reduced from Rs. 5,000/- per month to Rs. 4,500/- per
month (Rs. 3,500/- to the wife and Rs. 1,000/- to opposite party no. 3),
payable from the date of the application.
7. Accordingly, the present criminal revision is partly allowed. The amount
of maintenance is reduced to Rs. 4,500/- per month (Rs. 3,500/- to the wife
and Rs. 1,000/- to opposite party no. 3), payable from the date of the
application.
8. In case the revisionist has already paid any amount towards maintenance,
the same shall be adjusted. If any arrears remain unpaid, the revisionist shall
pay the same in eight equal monthly instalments. The first instalment shall
be paid on or before 20th April, 2026, and the remaining instalments shall
be paid on or before the fifteenth day of each succeeding calendar month.
(Madan Pal Singh,J.)
March 18, 2026
pks
Digitally signed by :-
PANKAJ KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…