Supreme Court Holds Allottees Who Elected RERA Remedy Cannot Subsequently Seek Interim Relief Under Section 9 Arbitration Act Lodging FIR Does Not Amount To Instigation: Supreme Court Quashes Section 306 IPC Case Against In-Laws Over Husband's Suicide Vigilant Citizen Deserves Acknowledgment: Supreme Court Sets Strict Timelines For 20-Year-Old Subway Project, Lauds Litigant's Relentless Legal Battle Lawyer Cannot Disclose Privileged Information On TV Even If Client Becomes Adversary: Supreme Court Upholds Suspension Of Advocate Rizwan Siddique, Slaps ₹5 Lakh Cost On Both Parties Supreme Court Modifies 3-Year Bar Practice Rule; Orders 1-Year Practice Coupled With 2-Year Academy Training & Clerkship Model Made A Scapegoat Under Pressure Of Public Outcry: Delhi High Court Acquits Man Sentenced To Life In POCSO Case Doctrine Of Lis Pendens Applies To Court Auctions; Purchaser Bound By Outcome Of Pending Specific Performance Suit: Allahabad High Court Andhra Pradesh High Court Rules Section 65B Evidence Act Objection Cannot Be Raised For First Time In Appeal Two-Month Time Limit To File Evidence Under Rule 45 Of Trade Marks Rules 2017 Is Mandatory; Non-Compliance Results In Deemed Abandonment: Madras High Court SEBI Act | Special Law Overrides General Law': Bombay High Court Quashes Police FIR Against Ex-Axis Mutual Fund Chief Dealer In Front-Running Case 'Truth Cannot Be Sacrificed At The Altar Of Rigid Timelines': Calcutta High Court Upholds Section 311 CrPC Powers At Any Stage For Just Decision 'A Dispute Does Not Cease To Be Criminal Merely Because It Involves Commercial Transaction': Chhattisgarh High Court Refuses To Quash Cheating FIR In ₹4.39 Cr Land Deal Holding In Designated Centres Only Way If Foreigner Cannot Be Expelled: Gauhati High Court Denies Bail To Declared Foreigner Who Illegally Re-Entered India Madras High Court Issues Guidelines Against Police Harassment Under Guise Of Enquiry, Mandates Written Summons Under Section 179 BNSS Grave Ramifications On Rights': Punjab & Haryana High Court Mandates Strict Compliance Of Section 82 CrPC Before Declaring Accused As Proclaimed Person 'Interacting With Father Benefits Child's Well-Being': Kerala High Court Grants Virtual Access To Father After Mother Takes Child Abroad Violating Restraint Order Agreement In Family Member’s Name Cannot Shield Occupants Under Section 53-A TP Act': Uttarakhand High Court Upholds Eviction Of Licensees Not Filling A Lacuna: Subsequent Forensic Report From Criminal Case Can Be Produced As Additional Evidence In Civil Suit: Punjab & Haryana High Court Mere Nomination In FIR Not Enough For Vicarious Liability: Allahabad High Court Acquits Murder Accused Under Section 149 IPC Demanding Separations From Depending In-Laws Constitute Mental Cruelty: Calcutta High Court Upholds Divorce Human Memory Not Photographic: Allahabad High Court Upholds Murder Conviction, Reiterates 'Falsus In Uno' Maxim Has No Application In India Litigant Claiming To Be Sub-Tenant Before Revenue Authorities Cannot Set Up Plea Of Adverse Possession In Civil Court: Madhya Pradesh High Court Civil Death": Orissa High Court Rules Blacklisting Of Contractor Without Specific Show-Cause Notice Violates Natural Justice Delay Irrespective Of Number Of Years Ought To Be Condoned In Land Acquisition Matters': Punjab & Haryana High Court Condones 3953 Days Delay 'Notary Cannot Act As Marriage Officer': Madhya Pradesh High Court Accepts Notary's Apology With ₹2 Lakh Welfare Cost, Directs Display Board Against Notarizing Marriages

Maintenance to be Recalculated at 25% of Husband’s Income for Wife, 20% for Each Child: Allahabad High Court Modifies Family Court’s Order

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant decision, the Allahabad High Court today revised the interim maintenance amounts previously ordered by the Family Court in Muzaffarnagar. The court declared that the maintenance “be recalculated at 25% of the husband’s income for the wife and 20% for each child,” ensuring the amounts reflect the respondent’s true financial capability.

The decision comes after Smt. Shaily Mittal and her two children filed a criminal revision petition against the interim maintenance awarded by the Family Court under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. The petitioners sought an enhancement citing that the initial maintenance calculation did not fully account for the husband’s undisclosed earnings from his business and investments.

Initially, the Family Court awarded Rs. 7,000 to the wife and Rs. 2,000 to each child. The revisionists challenged these figures, providing evidence of the husband’s additional income sources including substantial investments in NSCs, PPF, and FDRs, which were previously overlooked.

Justice Surendra Singh-I reviewed the submissions and evidence, focusing on:

Undisclosed Income: The husband’s monthly income was reassessed at Rs. 60,000 based on business involvement and investments.

Maintenance Recalculation: Aligning with legal precedents, the court set new maintenance amounts to 25% of the husband’s income for the wife and 20% for each child, amounting to Rs. 15,000 and Rs. 6,000 respectively.

Legal Framework: Citing cases such as Shailja vs. Khobbanna and Kalyan Dey Chowdhury vs. Rita Dey Chowdhury Nee Nandy, the judgment emphasized the court’s duty to ensure maintenance reflects the payer’s financial reality.

The Allahabad High Court amended the previous order to provide fairer maintenance support based on the comprehensive assessment of the husband’s finances. The revised maintenance is backdated to the original application date, with arrears to be settled in four installments.

 Date of Decision: 10th April 2024

 Smt. Shaily Mittal And 2 Others  VS Opposite Party: State Of U.P And Another

Latest Legal News