Ravinder Singh Bisht vs. State of U.P. and Another, 2026
It reinforces that Section 125 CrPC ensures maintenance to enable the wife to live with dignity, not just prevent destitution.
Judgement Details
Court
Allahabad High Court
Date of Decision
16 February 2026
Judges
Justice Madan Pal Singh
Citation
Acts / Provisions
Facts of the Case
-
The husband filed a criminal revision petition challenging an order of the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court No. 1, Ghaziabad, which directed him to pay ₹15,000 per month as maintenance to his wife.
-
The husband argued that the wife, being educated and employed, was financially independent, citing her Income Tax Return/Form-16 showing annual salary of ₹11,28,780.
-
He also contended he had left employment to care for his ailing parents and faced financial liabilities.
-
The wife’s counsel argued that the husband had a substantially higher income (admitted annual package of approximately ₹40 lakhs at JPMorgan between April 2018 – April 2020) and that the wife’s mere employment is not sufficient to deny maintenance.
-
The High Court examined the disparity in income and financial status of the parties, the wife’s standard of living during the matrimonial life, and the husband’s failure to provide convincing evidence of inability to pay.
Issues
-
Whether maintenance under Section 125 CrPC can be denied to a wife merely because she has her own income?
-
Whether the High Court can interfere with a Family Court’s order directing maintenance when there is a substantial disparity in financial status and earning capacity of the parties?
-
Whether alleged financial liabilities of the husband can justify reduction or denial of maintenance?
-
Whether the maintenance awarded was just, reasonable, and commensurate with the status and earning capacity of the parties?
Judgement
- The Allahabad High Court dismissed the criminal revision petition, upholding the Family Court’s order.
-
The Court emphasized that Section 125 CrPC aims not merely to prevent destitution but to maintain the wife’s dignity and standard of living consistent with the husband’s status.
-
Mere employment or income of the wife cannot be a ground to deny maintenance.
-
The husband failed to provide cogent evidence of reduced earning capacity or inability to pay.
-
The Court found a substantial disparity between the financial status and earning capacity of the husband and wife, justifying maintenance.
Held
-
Maintenance of ₹15,000 per month awarded by Family Court was upheld.
-
The husband’s revision petition was dismissed.
-
Financial disparity and standard of living during the matrimonial life are crucial factors in determining maintenance.
-
Mere income of the wife does not relieve the husband of statutory obligation.
Analysis
-
Reinforces that Section 125 CrPC ensures maintenance to enable the wife to live with dignity, not just prevent destitution.
-
Court relies on overall disparity in earning capacity, not absolute earnings of the wife.
-
Husband’s claimed financial difficulties without evidence are insufficient to deny statutory maintenance.
-
Emphasizes the Family Court’s discretion in determining just and reasonable maintenance.
-
Provides guidance that income of the spouse alone cannot override statutory obligations under Section 125.