The Family Court, Kanpur Dehat, had fixed the wife’s maintenance at ₹12,000 per month after the husband’s divorce petition was decreed in his favour. The wife filed a criminal revision seeking an increase of that amount, while the husband filed a revision challenging the award. It was an admitted fact that the husband had sufficient means of income, whereas the wife had no sufficient means to maintain herself and had not remarried after the divorce.
Court’s Observations on the Maintenance Guideline
The bench of Justice Achal Sachdev clarified that the principle of awarding twenty‑five percent of the husband’s net salary as maintenance is merely a broad guideline. The Court emphasized that this figure is not mandatory and that the trial court possesses the discretion to grant more or less depending on the factual matrix of each case. The Court further explained that, for the purpose of calculating maintenance, “net income” denotes income after mandatory deductions and taxes, not the gross salary.
Entitlement to Maintenance Despite Divorce Decree
Addressing the husband’s contention that the divorce decree bars the wife’s claim, the High Court reiterated that a legally wedded wife remains entitled to maintenance if she is unable to maintain herself, has not remarried and is not living in adultery. The bench noted that the object of maintenance is to ensure that the wife can live with dignity and not merely survive.
Findings on the Parties’ Financial Position
The record showed that the wife had no sufficient means of income and was unable to maintain herself. Conversely, the husband’s gross monthly salary was ₹86,674, of which ₹67,043 was being deposited into his bank account after mandatory deductions. The bench held that the husband possessed sufficient means to pay maintenance.
Limits of the Revisional Court’s Power
The High Court observed that a revisional court cannot ordinarily enhance or reduce the quantum of maintenance awarded by a trial court. Even if the trial court awarded a meager amount, the High Court in revision lacks the authority to increase it. However, 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.
Application of the Principles to the Present Case
The bench found that the Family Court had fixed the maintenance amount hastily, without considering the documentary evidence on record. Notably, the husband had failed to file an affidavit regarding his assets and liabilities as mandated by the Supreme Court in Rajnesh v. Neha. The trial court had ignored the admitted income of the husband and reached a conclusion unsupported by the record. Consequently, the Family Court’s finding on the quantum of maintenance was deemed erroneous.
The High Court referred to the Supreme Court’s ruling in Kalyan Dey Chowdhury v. Rita Dey Chowdhury Nee Nandy (2017) to reiterate that the twenty‑five percent benchmark is only a broad guideline. It noted that the lower court had failed to adequately consider the husband’s actual income and the prevailing rate of inflation. Concluding that the ₹12,000 awarded by the Family Court was neither just nor adequate for the wife’s sustenance, the bench allowed the wife’s revision and enhanced the monthly maintenance to ₹20,000, payable from the date of the original application.
Operative Outcome
The Allahabad High Court, therefore, enhanced the wife’s maintenance from ₹12,000 to ₹20,000 per month. The order clarifies that the twenty‑five percent guideline is not a strict rule and that courts must examine the specific facts, including the parties’ actual income, liabilities and the economic context, before fixing maintenance. The judgment reinforces the supervisory nature of revisional jurisdiction while affirming the wife’s right to claim maintenance despite a divorce decree in the husband’s favour.