Disclaimer: This has been reported after the availability of the order of the Court and not on media reports so as to give an accurate report to our readers.
Allahabad High Court: In a revision petition filed by a wife seeking maintenance, the Single Judge Bench of Lakshmi Kant Shukla, J., dismissed the petition, holding that in the absence of any cogent material showing a substantial increase in the actual and reasonable expenses of the minor daughter, any material enhancement in the income of the husband, or any subsequent deterioration in the financial condition of the wife, no sufficient ground was made out either to grant interim maintenance to the wife in her individual capacity or to enhance the maintenance already awarded to the minor daughter. Thus, the Court denied maintenance to the wife and refused to enhance the minor daughter’s maintenance.
The Court remarked,
“Thus, the wife, having asserted her financial capacity and obtained custody of the child on that basis, cannot seek to fasten the entire financial burden of the minor exclusively upon the husband.”
Background
In a maintenance application filed by a wife, the trial court rejected her claim but granted interim maintenance of ₹3000 per month to her minor daughter. Aggrieved, she filed the present revision petition challenging the impugned order.
She contended that the maintenance granted by the trial court was meagre and grossly insufficient considering the child’s expenses and that she had no means of income. She further contended that though in 2022 she was working in B.S.N. Infrastructure on a contract basis, she worked there only for three months. Thereafter, she resigned due to pressure exerted by her husband to quit the job.
The husband opposed the present revision petition contending that the wife was earning ₹14,125 as a monthly salary. In an affidavit filed by her, she did not fill the column of occupation and income. Furthermore, there was no documentary evidence on record to show that she resigned from her job.
Analysis
At the outset, the Court noted that the wife had herself obtained custody of the minor daughter on the specific assertion that she was financially capable of maintaining and taking proper care of her. The trial court also recorded a finding that she could maintain herself and, accordingly, declined to award any interim maintenance to her, while awarding ₹3000 per month to the minor daughter.
The Court referred to Rajnesh v. Neha, (2021) 2 SCC 324, wherein the Supreme Court held that although the reasonable expenses of the minor child, including those relating to food, clothing, residence, medical care and education, are required to be adequately provided for and the educational expenses are ordinarily to be borne by the father, where the mother is also working and earning sufficiently, such expenses may be shared proportionately between both parents. Thus, the wife, having asserted her financial capacity and obtained custody of the child on that basis, cannot seek to fasten the entire financial burden of the minor exclusively upon the husband.
Accordingly, the Court held that in the absence of any cogent material showing a substantial increase in the actual and reasonable expenses of the minor daughter, any material enhancement in the income of the husband, or any subsequent deterioration in the financial condition of the wife, no sufficient ground was made out either to grant interim maintenance to the wife in her individual capacity or to enhance the maintenance already awarded to the minor daughter.
Thus, the Court dismissed the petition, holding that the trial court, after considering all the relevant materials, passed a reasoned order and there is no good ground to interfere with the impugned order.
[Roji Bano v. State of U.P., Criminal Revision No. 6458 of 2025, decided on 14-7-2026]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the petitioner: Vaibhav Mishra, Akhilesh Kumar Vishwakarma, Anil Kumar Singh, Ranjeet Singh
For the respondent: Kanhaiya Mishra, Government Advocate Ehtesham Khan
