The Allahabad high court has observed that the widely cited benchmark of awarding a wife 25% of a husband’s net salary as maintenance is only a broad guideline and not mandatory.
A single bench of Justice Achal Sachdev said courts have the discretion to award a higher or lower amount depending on the facts of each case. The court also clarified that, for calculating maintenance, net income generally means income after mandatory deductions and taxes, not gross salary.
The observations came while deciding two connected criminal revisions—one by the wife, Pinki alias Preeti, seeking enhancement of the ₹12,000 monthly maintenance awarded by a family court in Kanpur Dehat, and the other by the husband, Shri Jai Prakash, challenging the same order.
The court said a revisional court cannot ordinarily enhance or reduce maintenance, as its jurisdiction is supervisory and not appellate. However, interference is justified where findings are perverse, material evidence has been ignored, or settled legal principles have been misapplied, resulting in grave injustice.
In the case, the husband’s gross monthly salary was ₹86,674, while ₹67,043 was credited to his account after deductions. The high court found that the family court had fixed maintenance without properly considering the documentary evidence, particularly as the husband had not filed an affidavit of assets and liabilities as mandated by the Supreme Court in Rajnesh v. Neha.
{{/usCountry}}In the case, the husband’s gross monthly salary was ₹86,674, while ₹67,043 was credited to his account after deductions. The high court found that the family court had fixed maintenance without properly considering the documentary evidence, particularly as the husband had not filed an affidavit of assets and liabilities as mandated by the Supreme Court in Rajnesh v. Neha.
{{/usCountry}}Holding that the family court had ignored the admitted income and reached a conclusion unsupported by the record, the high court interfered with the quantum of maintenance. Referring to Kalyan Dey Chowdhury v. Rita Dey Chowdhury Nee Nandy (2017), it reiterated that the 25% benchmark is only a guideline. Observing that the lower court had failed to consider the husband’s actual income and inflation, the high court, in its July 10 judgment, enhanced the wife’s monthly maintenance from ₹12,000 to ₹20,000 with effect from the date of the original application.