Prayagraj, Jul 14 The Allahabad High Court has observed that the widely cited benchmark of awarding a wife 25 per cent of a husband's net salary as maintenance is only a broad guideline and not mandatory.
Justice Achal Sachdev said that courts have the discretion to award more or less maintenance depending on the facts of each case.
The court further said that for the purpose of calculating maintenance, net income generally means income after mandatory deductions and taxes, not gross salary.
The court was hearing two connected criminal revisions -- one filed by a woman, Pinki alias Preeti, seeking an enhancement of the Rs 12,000 monthly maintenance awarded by a family court in Kanpur Dehat and the other filed by her husband, Shri Jai Prakash, challenging the same award.
The husband had filed a divorce petition against his wife which was decreed in his favour. Addressing this, the high court reiterated that the mere grant of a divorce decree does not disentitle a legally wedded wife from claiming maintenance provided she is unable to maintain herself and has neither remarried nor is living in adultery.
"The object of maintenance is to ensure that the wife is able to live with dignity and not merely survive," the court noted.
The court also noted that it had come on record that the wife had no sufficient means of income and was unable to maintain herself, whereas the husband had sufficient means of income. Hence, she was entitled to maintenance given that she had not remarried after the divorce.
With regard to the scope of its power, the court observed that a revisional court cannot ordinarily increase or reduce the quantum of maintenance.
"Even if the trial court awarded a meagre amount, the high court in revision cannot enhance it," the court emphasised, adding that a revisional court's power is supervisory, not appellate.
However, the high court clarified that interference is warranted when the trial court's findings are perverse, when material evidence has been ignored or when settled principles have been misapplied, resulting in grave injustice or hardship.
Against this backdrop, the court noted that the husband's gross monthly salary was Rs 86,674, of which Rs 67,043 was being deposited into his bank account after deduction.
However, the high court noted that the trial court had fixed the maintenance amount hastily without considering the documentary evidence on record, especially since the husband had failed to file an affidavit regarding his assets and liabilities as mandated by the Supreme Court in Rajnesh vs. Neha.
The court noted that since the family court had ignored admitted income and reached its own conclusion, unsupported by the record, it was necessary to upset the finding on quantum and correct the error.
The court referred to the Supreme Court's ruling in Kalyan Dey Chowdhury vs. Rita Dey Chowdhury Nee Nandy (2017) to note that the 25 per cent benchmark is a broad guideline.
It held that the trial court had failed to adequately consider the husband's actual income alongside the prevailing rate of inflation. While concluding that the Rs 12,000 awarded by the lower court was neither just nor adequate for her sustenance, the high court in its judgment dated July 10 allowed the wife's revision and enhanced the monthly maintenance to Rs 20,000 payable from the date of the original application.
Smt. Pinki Alias Preeti v. State of U.P., (Allahabad) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2939801
