Allahabad High Court Upholds Maintenance Award of Rs. 18,000 to Wife

Court dismisses revision plea challenging maintenance, emphasizes legal obligation of husband despite second marriage

In a significant ruling, the Allahabad High Court dismissed a criminal revision plea filed by Shailesh Kumar Yadav challenging the maintenance awarded to his legally wedded wife, Smt. Meena Devi. The judgment was delivered by Justice Madan Pal Singh on November 17, 2025, in the case of Shailesh Kumar Yadav v. State of U.P.

The revisionist, Shailesh Kumar Yadav, sought to overturn the order of the Principal Judge of Family Court, Ballia, which mandated him to pay Rs. 18,000 per month as maintenance. The order was passed on August 1, 2024, under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. The petitioner argued that the amount was excessive given his financial obligations towards his second family, including three children from his second marriage.

However, the court found the awarded maintenance reasonable, given the revisionist's admitted monthly income of Rs. 65,000, as disclosed in his affidavit. The court noted that his actual income is considerably higher, at approximately Rs. 1,20,000 per month, as acknowledged during proceedings. Justice Singh emphasized that the maintenance amount aligns with the principles laid down by the Supreme Court, allowing up to 25% of the husband's net income for maintenance, which in this case would equate to approximately Rs. 16,250 per month.

The court underscored the husband's legal obligation to support his wife and child, regardless of his second marriage. It dismissed the plea for revision, stating that the awarded amount was not excessive and was indeed on the lower side considering the husband's income. The court drew upon precedents from Supreme Court cases such as Rajnesh v. Neha and Kalyan Dey Chowdhury v. Rita Dey Chowdhury nee Nandy, reinforcing the maintenance principles.

Additionally, the judgment highlighted procedural lapses by the trial court, noting the absence of points for determination as mandated under Section 354(6) of the Cr.P.C. Justice Singh remarked on the importance of framing points for determination to ascertain the basis of judicial orders, instructing that this procedural compliance be enforced in future cases.

The court concluded by ordering the circulation of its judgment to all District Judges and Principal Judges of Family Courts to ensure adherence to procedural norms in maintenance cases.

Bottom Line:

Maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. - Maintenance up to 25% of the husband's net income can be granted as per the principles laid down by the Supreme Court. Maintenance of Rs.18,000/- per month awarded is reasonable and does not warrant interference.

Statutory provision(s): Section 125 Cr.P.C., Section 354(6) Cr.P.C.

Shailesh Kumar Yadav v. State of U.P., (Allahabad) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2810771