Section 125 CrPC | Maintenance Is A Social Welfare Measure To Prevent Destitution, Not A Tool For Financial Enrichment: Allahabad High Court

"Section 125 Cr.P.C. is a measure for securing sustenance and dignity and not a means of creating a bonanza or windfall in favour of the claimant." Allahabad High Court, in a ruling, held that the determination of maintenance under Section 125 CrPC must strike a fair balance between the claimant's needs and the payer's financial capacity, emphasizing that the provision is not intended for the financial enrichment of the claimant.

Dismissing cross-revisions filed by both the husband and wife, a bench of Justice Lakshmi Kant Shukla observed that the trial court correctly assessed the husband's income based on available evidence, noting that "the amount of maintenance must be determined having regard to the needs of the claimant, the income and financial capacity of the person liable to pay, the standard of living of the parties and the other relevant circumstances."

The matter arose from an order of the Family Court, Jaunpur, which directed the husband to pay Rs. 15,000 per month as maintenance to his wife under Section 125 CrPC. Both parties challenged the order; the husband sought to set it aside entirely, while the wife sought an enhancement of the maintenance amount. The wife contended that the trial court failed to account for the husband’s actual income, alleging he earned Rs. 4,00,000 per month as a CEO of a private company, while the husband argued the wife was gainfully employed and capable of maintaining herself.

The court was called upon to determine whether the trial court’s assessment of the husband's monthly income at Rs. 50,000 was based on a proper appreciation of evidence. Furthermore, the court had to decide whether the maintenance amount warranted an enhancement or if the evidence regarding the wife's past employment was sufficient to disentitle her from maintenance.

The court observed that the wife failed to provide cogent evidence to support her claim that the husband earned Rs. 4,00,000 per month. While acknowledging the husband was a co-founder of a company, the court held that the company's authorized or paid-up share capital does not automatically translate into a high personal income for the director.

Assessment of Financial Capacity

The bench noted that merely because a company possesses a certain level of capital, no presumption can be drawn that it generates such substantial profit as to allow for high salary disbursements. In the absence of reliable material, the court found no error in the trial court accepting the husband's salary as Rs. 50,000.

Standard for Maintenance Calculation

Regarding the quantum of maintenance, the court referenced the Supreme Court judgment in Kalyan Dey Chowdhury v. Rita Dey Chowdhury Nee Nandy, noting that while 25% of the net income is a guiding benchmark, it is not an inflexible rule. As the awarded Rs. 15,000 already exceeded this threshold relative to the husband's proven income, the request for enhancement was rejected.

No Absolute Right to Enrichment

The court reiterated that the primary object of Section 125 CrPC is to prevent vagrancy and destitution. It held that the law provides a shield for survival and dignity, but it cannot be weaponized to achieve financial windfall. Consequently, the court found the existing order to be balanced and reasonable.

The court concluded that neither the husband nor the wife could establish a legal ground for interference with the trial court's order. The argument that the wife was previously employed in 2021 did not suffice to deny her current maintenance claim, as there was no evidence of her ongoing employment or income at the time of filing the petition in 2022.

Date of Decision: 22 September 2026