Court says only income tax can be excluded while calculating maintenance, and voluntary loan repayments cannot reduce a husband’s legal duty to support his wife and minor child
The Allahabad High Court has modified a Family Court order in a maintenance dispute and directed that 25% of the husband’s gross salary, after excluding only income tax, be deducted every month and credited to the wife’s bank account for the maintenance of the wife and minor daughter.
Justice Praveen Kumar Giri passed the order on October 22, 2026, while deciding Criminal Revision No. 1465 of 2026 filed by Pinki Verma and another against the State of Uttar Pradesh and the husband, Saurabh alias Brij.
The revision arose from an order dated December 22, 2025, passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Kanpur Nagar, in proceedings under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Family Court had awarded Rs. 19,000 per month as maintenance, but the wife challenged the amount as inadequate and sought enhancement to Rs. 40,000 per month for herself and the minor child.
Before the High Court, counsel for the wife argued that the husband was employed as a Window Operator in Indian Bank, Unnao district, and that the maintenance fixed by the Family Court was not in line with Supreme Court rulings holding that 25% of the husband’s salary could be treated as a just and proper benchmark for maintenance. Reliance was placed on decisions including Dr. Kulbhushan Kumar v. Raj Kumari and Kalyan Dey Chowdhury v. Rita Dey Chowdhury.
The wife also contended that deductions made by the husband towards loan repayments and other voluntary financial commitments could not be used to reduce the amount payable towards maintenance. Referring to the Supreme Court’s 2026 ruling in Deepa Joshi v. Gaurav Joshi, it was argued that loan repayments, especially those resulting in creation of assets, are voluntary in nature and cannot take priority over the statutory obligation to maintain a spouse and child.
During the hearing, counsel for the husband submitted that there was no possibility of the parties resuming cohabitation and stated that the husband was ready for deduction of 25% of his salary from his salary account towards maintenance for his wife and minor daughter.
Accepting the broad legal position advanced by the wife, the High Court emphasized that the husband’s duty to maintain his wife and minor children is not only a legal obligation but also a “pious” one. The Court observed that Section 125 Cr.P.C., corresponding to Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, is a measure of social justice intended to prevent vagrancy and destitution of deserted wives and children.
The Court referred to the Supreme Court’s judgment in Anju Garg v. Deepak Kumar Garg, which underlined that it is the sacrosanct duty of the husband to provide financial support to his wife and minor children. The High Court reiterated that an able-bodied husband cannot avoid this responsibility except on legally permissible grounds.
On the issue of salary computation, the Court made it clear that only the amount deducted towards income tax can be excluded while calculating the salary for maintenance purposes. It held that deductions towards voluntary financial commitments such as loan repayments, particularly where they create assets, cannot be treated as essential expenditure so as to dilute the husband’s maintenance liability.
Modifying the Family Court’s order, the High Court directed the Principal Judge, Family Court, Kanpur Nagar, as well as the competent higher authority of Indian Bank, Unnao, to ensure deduction of 25% of the husband’s gross salary, after excluding income tax, from his salary account. The deducted amount is to be credited to the verified bank account of the wife.
With these directions, the criminal revision was disposed of.
The ruling is significant because it reinforces that maintenance must be commensurate with the husband’s earning capacity and the status of the parties, and that self-incurred liabilities such as loan repayments cannot be used to defeat the statutory rights of a wife and minor child.
Bottom Line:
Maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. corresponding to Section 144 BNSS - Husband's primary and continuing obligation to maintain wife and minor child - For determining maintenance, 25% of husband's gross salary after excluding income tax can be directed to be deducted and credited to wife's bank account - Voluntary deductions like loan repayments cannot dilute maintenance liability.
Statutory provision(s): Section 125 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Section 144 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, Order 47 Rule 1 Code of Civil Procedure, Article 15(3) Constitution of India, Article 39 Constitution of India
Pinki Verma v. State of U.P., (Allahabad) : Law Finder Doc Id # 3001745
