Prayagraj: In a significant ruling, the Allahabad high court has observed that the widely cited benchmark of awarding a wife 25% of her husband’s net salary as maintenance is only a broad guideline and not a mandatory rule.Making the observation, Justice Achal Sachdev clarified that courts have the discretion to award either a higher or lower amount depending on the facts and circumstances of each case. The court also held that, for the purpose of determining maintenance, net income generally refers to income after mandatory deductions and taxes, and not the gross salary.The court was hearing two connected criminal revision petitions — one filed by the wife, Pinki alias Preeti, seeking enhancement of the Rs 12,000 monthly maintenance awarded by a family court in Kanpur Dehat, and the other filed by the husband, Jai Prakash, challenging the same order.Stating that the maintenance awarded by the family court was neither just nor sufficient for the wife’s sustenance, the high court, in its July 10 judgment, allowed her revision petition and enhanced the maintenance to Rs 20,000 per month, payable from the date of the original application.The man had filed a divorce petition, which had been decreed in his favour. Addressing this, the high court reiterated that the mere grant of a divorce decree does not disentitle a legally wedded wife from claiming maintenance, provided she is unable to maintain herself and has neither remarried nor is living in adultery.“The object of maintenance is to ensure that the wife is able to live with dignity and not merely survive,” the court observed.The court noted that the woman had no sufficient source of income and was unable to maintain herself, whereas the husband had adequate means. Since she had not remarried after the divorce, she remained entitled to maintenance.On the scope of its revisional jurisdiction, the court observed that a revisional court cannot ordinarily increase or reduce the quantum of maintenance.“Even if the trial court awarded a meagre amount, the HC in revision cannot enhance it,” the court observed, adding that the revisional court’s powers are supervisory and not appellate.However, the court clarified that interference is justified where the trial court’s findings are perverse, material evidence has been ignored, or settled legal principles have been misapplied, resulting in grave injustice or hardship.In the present case, the court noted that the husband’s gross monthly salary was Rs 86,674, while Rs 67,043 was credited to his bank account after deductions. It found that the family court had fixed the maintenance amount hurriedly without considering the documentary evidence on record, particularly since the husband had failed to file an affidavit disclosing his assets and liabilities, as mandated by the Supreme Court in Rajnesh v. Neha.The high court observed that the family court had ignored the admitted income and arrived at its conclusion without support from the evidence on record. It, therefore, held that the finding on the quantum of maintenance required interference.Referring to the Supreme Court’s decision in Kalyan Dey Chowdhury vs Rita Dey Chowdhury Nee Nandy (2017), the court reiterated that the 25% benchmark is only a broad guideline and not a rigid formula. It held that the family court had failed to adequately consider the husband’s actual income as well as the prevailing rate of inflation while determining maintenance.
