Latest JudgementCode of Criminal Procedure, 1973

Shyam Mohan v. State of U.P. and Another, 2026

The judgment reinforces the beneficial and social-justice oriented nature of Section 125 Cr.P.C.

Allahabad High Court·22 January 2026

Court

Allahabad High Court

Date of Decision

22 January 2026

Judges

Justice Garima Prashad

Citation

Acts / Provisions

Section 125, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Order XIX Rule 3, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 Section 106, Indian Evidence Act, 1872

Facts of the Case

The parties were married on 14 June 2020 and started living separately from 14 March 2022.
The wife alleged that she was ousted from the matrimonial home due to dowry demands.
She claimed that she had received no financial support from the husband thereafter.
She sought Rs. 15,000 per month towards educational expenses, daily needs, and medical expenses.
The wife alleged that the husband owned 75 bighas of agricultural land, earned from farming and coaching classes, and had a monthly income of about Rs. 40,000.
The husband denied all allegations, claimed no source of income, and asserted that the wife was well-educated and capable of earning.
The Family Court awarded interim maintenance of Rs. 3,500 per month.
Aggrieved, the husband filed a criminal revision before the High Court.

Whether a wife is entitled to claim interim maintenance towards her educational expenses under Section 125 Cr.P.C.?
Whether an adverse inference can be drawn against a husband who fails to file an affidavit disclosing income and assets in maintenance proceedings?
Whether interim maintenance must be based on exact arithmetical calculation of income?
Whether the interim maintenance awarded by the Family Court was excessive or arbitrary?

The Allahabad High Court dismissed the criminal revision petition.
The Court held that the wife’s claim for educational expenses was prima facie justified.
It observed that failure to file an affidavit of income and assets, despite opportunity, warrants drawing an adverse inference against the husband.
The Court relied on Order XIX Rule 3 CPC and Section 106 Evidence Act relating to facts within special knowledge.
It clarified that interim maintenance is not based on precise mathematical calculations, but on prima facie entitlement and fairness.
The Court found that the husband failed to establish that the wife had any independent source of income.
The interim maintenance of Rs. 3,500 per month was held to be just, reasonable, and not excessive.

Educational expenses of a wife can be included in interim maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C.
Non-disclosure of income by the husband allows the court to draw adverse inference.
Interim maintenance is based on broad assessment, not exact computation.
The Family Court’s order granting interim maintenance was legal and proper.

The judgment reinforces the beneficial and social-justice oriented nature of Section 125 Cr.P.C.
It strengthens the principle that maintenance proceedings cannot be frustrated by non-disclosure of income.
The Court rightly placed the burden of proof on the husband for facts within his special knowledge.
Recognition of educational expenses reflects an evolving understanding of wife’s dignity and self-development.
The ruling discourages evasive tactics in maintenance litigation and promotes procedural fairness.
It aligns with the broader jurisprudence that interim maintenance is a matter of sustenance, not punishment.