S.125 CrPC | 25% Maintenance Must Be Computed On Gross Salary Excluding Only Income Tax; Employer Directed To Directly Deduct Sum: Allahabad High Court

" Not only legal but a pious obligation is upon the husband to maintain his chaste wife, minor children and parents, if they are financially unable to maintain themselves." Allahabad High Court has ruled that maintenance payable by a husband under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 must be fixed at 25 percent of his gross salary, excluding solely the statutory deduction towards income tax.

A single bench of Justice Praveen Kumar Giri on October 22, 2026, directed the employer bank to deduct 25 percent directly from the husband's salary and credit it to the wife's bank account, emphasizing that voluntary deductions and loan repayments cannot diminish the statutory obligation to support dependent family members.

The revisionist-wife and her minor child approached the High Court challenging an order dated December 22, 2025, passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Kanpur Nagar, which awarded only Rs. 19,000 per month instead of the claimed Rs. 40,000 per month. The husband was employed as a Window Operator in Indian Bank, District Unnao. The revisionists contended that the quantum awarded by the Family Court failed to adhere to settled apex court precedents governing proportional maintenance.

Whether maintenance under Section 125 CrPC must be calculated at 25 percent of the husband's gross salary excluding only statutory income tax deductions, and whether the employer can be directed to deduct the maintenance sum directly at source?

Husband carries a sacrosanct and pious duty to maintain dependents

The Court observed that maintaining a wife, minor children, and dependent parents constitutes both a legal and pious duty of an able-bodied man. Referring to ancient jurisprudence as well as modern constitutional guarantees, the Court underscored that the purpose of summary maintenance proceedings is to alleviate vagrancy and destitution.

The bench placed reliance on the Supreme Court's pronouncement in Anju Garg v. Deepak Kumar Garg, highlighting that Section 125 CrPC functions as a social justice measure under the umbrella of Articles 15(3) and 39 of the Constitution of India. The Court cited Chapter XI Verse 10 of the Manusmriti to reiterate the historic sanctity attached to sustaining dependent family members.

Voluntary loan repayments cannot take precedence over statutory maintenance obligations

Citing the Supreme Court's decision in Deepa Joshi v. Gaurav Joshi, the revisionists argued that loan deductions representing capital asset creation cannot be placed above the primary duty to maintain the wife and minor child. The apex court had settled that asset-generating deductions partake in the character of voluntary capital investments and cannot equate to unavoidable statutory liabilities.

Consequently, the Court accepted the legal proposition that only statutory deductions like income tax can be carved out when computing the husband's real earning capacity. Other voluntary deductions cannot be allowed to dilute or artificially depress net earnings for defeating just maintenance claims.

Direct employer deductions ordered to secure timely maintenance payments

Applying the benchmark established in Dr. Kulbhushan Kumar v. Raj Kumari and Kalyan Dey Chowdhury v. Rita Dey Chowdhury, the Court noted that awarding 25 percent of the husband's net salary stands as a just, fair, and reasonable standard. The opposite party husband conceded before the High Court that he had no objection to the deduction of 25 percent of his salary towards maintaining his wife and minor daughter.

To forestall recurring execution proceedings and secure immediate financial sustenance, the Court directed the Family Court and the employer bank to establish a direct deduction mechanism at source. The employer was instructed to route the quantified sum straight into the wife's verified account.

Modifying the Family Court's order, the High Court directed the Principal Judge, Family Court, Kanpur Nagar, and the competent authority of Indian Bank, District Unnao, to deduct 25 percent of the husband's gross salary—after excluding only income tax deductions—from his salary account and credit the same directly to the verified bank account of the wife.

Date of Decision: October 22, 2026