The Allahabad High Court recently dismissed a criminal revision petition filed by a husband challenging an order granting maintenance to his wife under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Court observed that there was a substantial disparity in the earning capacity and financial status of the parties.

The Bench comprising Justice Madan Pal Singh held that the income attributed to the wife could not be considered sufficient to enable her to maintain the same standard of living that she enjoyed during her matrimonial life. The Court emphasized that the object of Section 125 Cr.P.C. is not merely to prevent destitution but to ensure that the wife is able to live with dignity, consistent with the status of the husband. It further clarified that mere employment or earning by the wife, by itself, is not a valid ground to deny maintenance.

The revisionist-husband had approached the High Court seeking to set aside the order of the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court No. 1, Ghaziabad, which directed him to pay ₹15,000 per month to his wife as maintenance from the date of the application.

Before the High Court, the husband contended that the maintenance amount was excessive and unjustified, as the wife was an educated and working woman who was financially independent. In support of his submission, he relied on her Income Tax Return/Form-16 of May 2018, which reflected an annual credited salary of ₹11,28,780.

He further alleged that the wife had voluntarily left the matrimonial home, failed to discharge her matrimonial obligations, and refused to reside with his aged parents. Regarding his own financial capacity, he submitted that he had resigned from his employment to care for his ailing parents and was presently burdened with financial liabilities, leaving him without sufficient means to pay maintenance.

On the other hand, counsel for the wife argued that the husband had not made a full and truthful disclosure of his income and standard of living. It was pointed out that, in his statement before the trial court, the husband had admitted that between April 2018 and April 2020, he was employed with JPMorgan Chase and was drawing an annual package of approximately ₹40 lakhs.

The wife’s counsel further contended that mere employment of the wife cannot be a ground to deny maintenance, especially when there exists a glaring disparity in income and status between the parties.

Justice Singh noted that the husband had failed to place any cogent evidence on record to establish a substantial reduction in his earning capacity. As regards the wife’s income, the Court observed that even assuming she had an independent source of income, the material on record clearly demonstrated a significant disparity in the financial positions of the parties.

The Bench held that the wife’s income was insufficient to enable her to maintain the same standard of living to which she was accustomed during her matrimonial life. The Court also rejected the husband’s plea of financial constraints, terming it a “bald assertion,” as no reliable or convincing material had been produced to show that he lacked sufficient means to discharge his statutory obligation.

In light of these findings, the Court concluded that the maintenance awarded by the Family Court was just, reasonable, and commensurate with the husband’s status and earning capacity. Finding no perversity, illegality, or material irregularity in the impugned order, the High Court dismissed the criminal revision petition.

Case Title: Ravinder Singh Bisht v. State of U.P. and Another
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 77