Allahabad High Court
ANURAGversusSMT. SONI
- Decided
Holding
The appeal is dismissed; the maintenance of Rs.5,000 per month (to be amalgamated with the existing Rs.3,000) is upheld.
Summary
The appellant husband appealed against a trial court order that granted his wife maintenance of Rs.5,000 per month under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, in addition to an existing Rs.3,000 per month awarded under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The husband argued that the total amount of Rs.8,000 was excessive, citing his tuberculosis, inability to work regularly, and his limited education as reasons to reduce the maintenance. The wife contended that the order was reasonable, that his education does not relieve his duty, and that the two maintenance awards should be amalgamated. The High Court found no medical evidence of the husband's illness and held that the amount was reasonable, noting that the trial court had already indicated the two awards would be combined. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, leaving the maintenance order intact.
Issues considered
- Whether the husband's ill health and reduced earning capacity justify a reduction of maintenance under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act.
- Whether the maintenance awarded under Section 24 can be amalgamated with the existing maintenance under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
- Whether the husband's educational qualification affects his liability to pay maintenance.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 125
- Hindu Marriage Act — s. 24
Subjects
- maintenance
- Hindu Marriage Act
- Section 24
- Criminal Procedure Code
- Section 125
- miserable health
- tuberculosis
- educational qualification
- amalgamation of orders
- matrimonial cruelty
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
FIRST APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 32 of 2026
Anurag
.....Appellant(s)
Versus
Smt. Soni
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Appellant(s) : Mithilesh Kumar Shukla
Counsel for Respondent(s) : Phool Singh Yadav, Vaibhav Yadav
Court No. - 2
HON'BLE ATUL SREEDHARAN, J.
HON'BLE VIVEK SARAN, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Phool Singh Yadav,
learned counsel for the respondent.
2. The present appeal has been filed against the order dated 08.10.2025
passed by the learned court below whereby an application under Section 24
of the Hindu Marriage Act filed by the respondent wife has been allowed
and the learned court below has awarded monthly maintenance of Rs.5,000/-
in favour of the respondent wife.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the amount is in excess and
the total amount would now be Rs.8,000/- as she is already receiving
Rs.3,000/- from the appellant herein in compliance of the order passed under
Section 125 Cr.P.C. He has also submitted that the appellant is suffering
from tuberculosis (TB) for which he has burden towards his treatment. He
has submitted that on account of ailment, the appellant is unable to work
regularly as a labourer. Learned counsel for the appellant has also stated that
appellant is 10th standard passed and therefore the amount is liable to be
reduced.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand has submitted that
there is no requirement for interference in the impugned order as the same is
FAPLD No. 32 of 2026
2
well reasoned and has taken into account the totality of the circumstances
prevailing against the respondent wife. He has further stated that merely
because the appellant is only 10th standard passed does not obviate the
responsibility of maintaining the respondent as she is his legally wedded
wife. He has further stated that the respondent is compelled to live separately
from her husband on account of matrimonial cruelty meted out to the
respondent. He has further submitted that it is undisputed that the learned
court below under Section 125 Cr.P.C. has already awarded Rs.3,000/- as
maintenance. He has further stated that the said amount would stand
amalgamated with the amount of Rs.5,000/- per month given in the
impugned order.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the
case.
6. Undisputedly, in this case, the appellant is husband of the respondent. As
regards the contention of learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant
is suffering from tuberculosis (TB) on account of which he is unable to
perform his regular work and therefore his earnings are decreased, is rejected
as no document pertaining to the illness was ever placed before the learned
trial court giving it an opportunity to consider the same and pass appropriate
order. Besides that, it is a well known fact that the disease of tuberculosis
(TB) can be treated for free in Government Hospitals.
7. Be that as it may, looking into the facts and circumstances of the case, the
amount given to the respondent wife seems reasonable and the fear of the
appellant that he would have to pay total amount of Rs.8,000/- stands
operated by the fact that the learned trial court itself has stated that the
amount of Rs.5,000/- would stand amalgamated with other maintenance
amount passed by Court of competent jurisdiction.
8. Under the circumstances, the appeal stands dismissed.
FAPLD No. 32 of 2026
3
May 12, 2026
R.S. Tiwari
(Vivek Saran,J.) (Atul Sreedharan,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
RAVI SHANKAR TIWARI
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…