S. 125 CrPC | Maintenance Not A Bonanza, Not Meant To Confer Unmerited Financial Advantage : Allahabad High Court

The Allahabad High Court has observed that maintenance under Section 125 CrPC is meant to secure reasonable and dignified support rather than create a "bonanza or windfall".

The Court added that it is not intended to confer an "unmerited financial advantage" or serve as a source of enrichment for the person claiming it.

A Bench of Justice Lakshmi Kant Shukla made these observations while dismissing cross-revisions filed by a husband and his wife against a Family Court order awarding the wife ₹15,000 per month as maintenance under Section 125 CrPC.

The wife had sought enhancement of the amount, while the husband sought setting aside of the maintenance order.

The Court also clarified that the 25% of the husband's net income benchmark for determining maintenance is only a guiding factor and cannot be treated as an inflexible rule.

Case in brief

In her plea, the wife contended that the Family Court had incorrectly assessed her husband's income at ₹50,000 per month.

She submitted that the husband was a B.Tech degree-holder, co-founder and CEO of a private company and he was earning approximately ₹4 lakh per month from the company.

According to the material placed before the Court, the husband and another person had been directors of the company since July 14, 2016, and were shown as its co-founders and CEOs.

The company's authorized share capital was ₹50 lakh, while its paid-up share capital was ₹20 lakh.

On this basis, the wife argued that the Family Court had failed to properly assess the husband's income and financial capacity.

The husband, however, relied upon his salary record showing a monthly income of ₹50,000.

High Court's observations

The High Court rejected the wife's contention that the husband's income could be presumed to be ₹4 lakh merely because of the company's share capital.

The Court noted that the wife failed to establish that the husband earned ₹4 lakh per month. Although she had established that he was a co-founder of the company, the salary slip placed on record showed his monthly salary as ₹50,000.

The Court observed thus:

"Merely because the authorised share capital of the aforesaid company is shown to be Rs. 50,00,000/- and its paid-up share capital, as reflected in the balance sheet, is Rs. 20,00,000/-, no presumption can be drawn that the company was generating sufficient income to enable it to pay the husband a monthly salary of ₹4 lakh".

The bench said that in the absence of "cogent and reliable material" establishing such income, the wife's assertion could not be accepted merely on the basis of the authorized or paid-up share capital of the company.

The Court then considered whether the Family Court's ₹15,000 monthly maintenance award required enhancement.

Referring to the Supreme Court's judgment in Kalyan Dey Chowdhury v. Rita Dey Chowdhury Nee Nandy, the High Court noted that ordinarily 25% of the husband's net income may be a reasonable benchmark for determining maintenance payable to the wife.

However, the Court made it clear that the percentage is "only a guiding factor and not an inflexible rule".

Applying this principle, the Court noted that even on the basis of the husband's monthly income of ₹50,000 assessed by the Family Court, the maintenance of ₹15,000 per month awarded to the wife was already substantially higher than 25% of that income.

It therefore found no justification to enhance the maintenance amount.

The husband also argued that the wife could maintain herself, as she was educated and had worked as a teacher at a private school.

The record contained salary slips for August, September and October 2021 showing her monthly income as ₹45,000.

The wife, however, submitted that these salary slips related only to a limited period in 2021 and did not establish that she continued to earn a similar income when the maintenance proceedings were instituted in 2022.

She further submitted that she was no longer working as a teacher at the relevant time. 

Against this backdrop, the Bench also explained the object of Section 125 CrPC, describing it as a "measure of social justice" intended to provide a reasonable and dignified means of support to the person entitled to maintenance.

At the same time, the Court observed that the provision is not intended to confer an unmerited financial advantage or to serve as a source of enrichment for the person claiming maintenance.

It added that the amount of maintenance must be determined by considering the needs of the claimant, the income and financial capacity of the person liable to pay, the standard of living of the parties and other relevant circumstances, so as to strike a fair balance between the legitimate needs of the claimant and the corresponding financial capacity of the person liable to maintain.

In view of these findings, the High Court found no reason to interfere with the Family Court's order of November 2024.

In view of this, both the husband's revision plea seeking to set aside the maintenance order and the wife's revision plea seeking enhancement were accordingly dismissed.