Citing a verse from the 'Manusmriti', the Allahabad High Court recently stressed a husband's 'pious obligation' to maintain his wife, minor children and aged parents.

A bench of Justice Praveen Kumar Giri referred to Chapter XI, Verse 10 of the Manusmriti while dealing with a criminal revision filed by the wife seeking enhancement of maintenance awarded by a Family Court in Kanpur Nagar.

The Court reproduced the Sanskrit verse:

"वृद्धौ च मातापितरौ साध्वी भार्या सुतः शिशुः।
अपकार्यशतं कृत्वा भर्तव्या मनुर्ब्रवीत॥"

The English translation provided by the Court reads thus:

"Aged parents, a virtuous wife, and an infant son must be maintained (supported), even by performing a hundred misdeeds (improper actions)-so said Manu".

The Court referred to the verse, observing that a husband has not only a legal but also a "pious obligation" to maintain his wife, minor children and parents if they are financially unable to support themselves.

In its October 22 order, the High Court also relied on the Supreme Court's judgment in Anju Garg and Another vs. Deepak Kumar Garg 2022.

In that case, the Supreme Court had observed that it is the 'sacrosanct' duty of the husband to provide financial support to the wife and to the minor children, earning by legitimate means.

The top Court had further stated that the husband is required to earn money even by physical labour, if he is an able-bodied, and could not avoid his obligation, except on the legally permissible grounds mentioned in the statute,

The High Court also reproduced the Apex Court's observation that maintenance proceedings under Section 125 CrPC are intended to prevent vagrancy and destitution of a deserted wife by providing food, clothing and shelter through a speedy remedy.

In this case before the HC, the wife challenged the Family Court order awarding maintenance of ₹19,000 per month to the wife and minor daughter. The wife sought enhancement of the amount to ₹40,000 per month.

The husband works as a window operator at Indian Bank in Unnao district.

The wife's counsel argued that deductions towards voluntary financial commitments, including loan repayments, could not dilute the husband's primary obligation to maintain his wife and child.

Reliance was placed on the Supreme Court's judgment in Deepa Joshi vs. Gaurav Joshi 2026, which observed that loan repayments, particularly those resulting in the creation or acquisition of assets, cannot be equated with essential or unavoidable expenditure.

The husband's counsel submitted that he was willing to have 25% of his salary deducted towards maintenance for his wife and minor daughter.

Modifying the Family Court's order, the High Court directed the concerned higher authority of Indian Bank to deduct 25% of the husband's gross salary, after excluding income-tax deductions and credit the amount to the wife's verified bank account.

The criminal revision was disposed of accordingly.