The Allahabad High Court has observed that maintenance under Section 125 CrPC cannot be granted while ignoring the professional competence and earning potential of the wife-claimant. A single bench of Justice Madan Pal Singh partly allowed the criminal revision filed by the husband, a Subedar in the Indian Army drawing a salary of about Rs 70,000 per month, and reduced the maintenance awarded to his wife from Rs 18,000 per month to Rs 12,000 per month from the date of filing of the application.

The revision arose out of an order dated 05 February 2025 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Mainpuri in a proceeding under Section 125 CrPC, whereby the husband was directed to pay Rs 12,000 per month to his wife from the date of filing of the application till the date of the order and Rs 18,000 per month thereafter. The wife is a qualified Radiologist who had admittedly worked at Fortis Hospital, Gurugram from 2014 to 2020 before leaving the job on her own volition.

Before the High Court, the husband contended that the trial court failed to consider the wife’s income and professional qualifications. It was argued that she is highly qualified, capable of earning, and had voluntarily left the matrimonial home and refused to discharge her matrimonial obligations. On the other hand, the wife supported the Family Court order and submitted that mere employment or qualification of the wife cannot be a ground to deny maintenance, especially when there exists disparity in the income and status of the parties.

The Court noted that it is well settled that the object of granting maintenance under Section 125 CrPC is to ensure that the wife is able to live with dignity and maintain a standard of living reasonably similar to that enjoyed in the matrimonial home. However, the bench observed that the wife’s professional qualifications and past employment as a Radiologist clearly demonstrate that she has substantial earning capacity and is capable of engaging herself in gainful employment.

In such circumstances, the Court held that maintenance cannot be granted while ignoring the professional competence and earning potential of the claimant. The bench found that the amount of Rs 18,000 per month awarded by the Family Court from the date of the impugned order was excessive and not commensurate with the earning capacity of the parties. Accordingly, the amount was reduced to Rs 12,000 per month from the date of filing of the application.

The criminal revision was thus partly allowed and the impugned order was modified to the extent indicated above.

Case Title: Binay Kushwaha v. State of U.P. and Another
Case No.: Criminal Revision No. 2132 of 2025
Date of Judgment: 12 March 2026
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Madan Pal Singh

Click HERE for full Judgment