'25% Of Monthly Pension As Maintenance To Wife Not Excessive': Allahabad HC Dismisses Husband's Revision Plea

The Court relied on Kulbhushan Kumar Vs. Raj Kumari where the Supreme Court held that

“25% of the husband's net salary would be just and proper to be awarded as maintenance allowance to the wife. The amount of permanent alimony awarded to the wife must be befitting the status of the parties and the financial capacity of the husband to make the payment.”

This decision of the Supreme Court has been recently followed in Kalyan Dey Chaudhary Vs. Rita Dey Chaudhary Nee Nandy where the Apex Court awarded the wife 25% of net income of the husband as maintenance.

Factual Background

Revisionist- alleged husband challenged the order of the Additional Principal Judge, IIIrd, Family Court, Allahabad granting maintenance of Rs. 7000/- per month to opposite party no.2. Counsel for revisionist argued that opposite party no.2 was not his lawfully wedded wife, and her children were not his children. It was argued that even though a DNA test was requested by him, the Trial Court did not pass any order on the application.

It was argued that the order of the trial Court was based on surmises and conjectures without application of mind. It was argued that the opposite party was deriving income from selling his crops and working on his farm. Her son and daughters were settled in their own lives.

Further, it was submitted that the revisionist was married to Gayatri Devi and had two sons with her out of whom one had passed away. It was submitted that the brother of the revisionist had employed the opposite party and had threatened the revisionist not to move towards agricultural land or he would face consequences. It was argued that his brother in collusion with the opposite party had filed various cases against him.

It was argued the revisionist was a 79-year-old retired government employee who is undergoing medical treatment. It was urged that the Trial Court had erred in adding the agricultural income to his pension before awarding the maintenance.

The opposite party, on the other hand, pleaded that she was the lawfully wedded wife of the revisionist and had children with him. Thereafter, he moved away for his government job and started living with Gayatri Devi.

High Court Verdict

The Court observed that the Trial Court had upheld his marriage with the opposite party on the grounds that he had produced no oral or documentary evidence regarding his marriage to Gayatri Devi. The Court held that service records which record the name of Gayatri Devi as the wife of the revisionist and her medical reports cannot be relied upon for concluding that the revisionist was married to Gayatri Devi.

“The proceeding u/s 125 Cr.P.C. is summary in nature in which only prima facie it has to be seen that the applicant is the wife of the opposite party. It is a social legislation enacted for protecting the wife, minor children and parents of a person from vagrancy and destitution,” observed Justice Surendra Singh-I.

The Court relied on Anju Garg and Another Vs. Deepak Kumar Garg where the Supreme Court held that the intent behind Section 125 CrPC is to lessen the suffering of a woman being made to leave her marital home by providing her means to sustain herself and the children.

Holding that the marriage between the parties was valid, the Court held that 25% on his monthly income, which is his pension, should be awarded to the wife. Accordingly, the Court increased the compensation granted by the Trial Court from Rs. 7000/- per month to Rs. 8664/- per month. The Court held that the maintenance awarded by the Trial Court was on the lower side vis-à-vis the monthly pension of the revisionist.

Case Title: Matapher vs. State of U.P. and Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 221 [CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 3032 of 2023]