Fixing Maintenance For Wife At 25% Of Husband's Net Income Not Mandatory; Court May Grant More Or Less: Allahabad High Court
The Allahabad High Court has observed that the widely cited benchmark of awarding a wife 25% of a husband's net salary as maintenance is only a "broad guideline" and not mandatory.
A bench of Justice Achal Sachdev clarified that courts have the discretion to award more or less, depending on the facts of each case.
The Court also clarified that for the purpose of calculating maintenance, "net income" generally means income after mandatory deductions and taxes, not gross salary.
The Court was essentially hearing two connected criminal revisions: one filed by the wife seeking an enhancement of the ₹12,000 monthly maintenance awarded by a Family Court in Kanpur Dehat, and the other filed by the husband challenging the same award.
It was an admitted position that the husband had filed a divorce petition against the wife, which was decreed in his favour.
Addressing this, the High Court reiterated that the mere grant of a divorce decree does not disentitle a legally wedded wife from claiming maintenance, provided she is unable to maintain herself and has not remarried or is living in adultery.
"The object of maintenance is to ensure that the wife is able to live with dignity and not merely survive", the bench noted.
The bench also noted that it had come on record that the wife had no sufficient means of income and was unable to maintain herself, whereas the husband had sufficient means of income. Hence, she was entitled to maintenance, given that she had not remarried after the divorce.
Regarding the scope of its power, the bench observed that a revisional court cannot ordinarily increase or reduce the quantum of maintenance. "Even if the trial court awarded a meager amount, the High Court in revision cannot enhance it", the bench stressed, adding that a revisional court's power is supervisory, not appellate.
However, the bench clarified that interference is warranted when the trial court's findings are perverse, when material evidence has been ignored, or when settled principles have been misapplied, resulting in grave injustice or hardship.
Against this backdrop, the bench noted that the husband's gross monthly salary was ₹86,674, of which ₹67,043 was being deposited into his bank account.
However, the High Court noted that the trial court had fixed the maintenance amount hastily without considering the documentary evidence on record, especially since the husband had failed to file an affidavit regarding his assets and liabilities as mandated by the Supreme Court in Rajnesh v. Neha
The Court noted that since the Family Court had ignored admitted income and reached its own conclusion, unsupported by the record, it was necessary to upset the finding on quantum and correct the error.
The bench referred to the Supreme Court's ruling in Kalyan Dey Chowdhury v. Rita Dey Chowdhury Nee Nandy (2017) to note that the 25% benchmark is a broad guideline. It held that the trial court had failed to adequately consider the husband's actual income alongside the prevailing rate of inflation.
Concluding that the ₹12,000 awarded by the lower court was neither just nor adequate for her sustenance, the High Court allowed the wife's revision and enhanced the monthly maintenance to ₹20,000, payable from the date of the original application.
Case Title: Pinki Alias Preeti Versus State of U.P. and Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 404
Case citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 404