Prayagraj: The Allahabad High Court has modified a Family Court’s maintenance order and directed that 25% of the husband’s gross salary, after excluding income tax, be deducted by his employer, Indian Bank, and paid to his wife for maintenance of herself and their minor daughter.
Justice Praveen Kumar Giri, in an order dated 22 October 2026 in Criminal Revision No. 1465 of 2026, observed that not only a legal but a pious obligation lies on a husband to maintain his wife, minor children and parents who cannot maintain themselves.
The revisionists, Pinki Verma and her minor daughter, challenged the judgment and order dated 22.12.2025 of the Principal Judge, Family Court, Kanpur Nagar, in a case under Section 125 CrPC, to the extent it awarded monthly maintenance of ₹19,000 instead of the ₹40,000 per month they had claimed from the husband (opposite party No. 2). They also sought litigation costs.
Counsel for the revisionists submitted that the husband works as a Window Operator in Indian Bank, District Unnao, and that the maintenance awarded does not accord with the Supreme Court’s rulings in Dr. Kulbhushan Kumar v. Raj Kumari and Kalyan Dey Chowdhury v. Rita Dey Chowdhury Nee Nandy, in which 25% of the husband’s salary was held to be just and proper maintenance.
He further argued that deductions for voluntary financial commitments such as loan repayments cannot dilute the husband’s primary obligation to maintain his spouse, so his gross salary, excluding only income tax, should be treated as his income. He relied on the Supreme Court’s 2026 ruling in Deepa Joshi v. Gaurav Joshi, which held that repayments of loans that create assets are in the nature of capital investment and voluntary in nature, and cannot take precedence over the enforceable obligation of maintenance. He also sought a direction for deduction of 25% of the salary directly from the husband’s account.
Counsel for the husband submitted that there was no chance of the husband having his wife and minor daughter with him, and that the husband was ready for deduction of 25% of his salary as maintenance for his wife and minor daughter.
The Court noted that Section 125 CrPC, corresponding to Section 144 of the BNSS, creates an obligation on the husband to maintain the wife and children who are unable to maintain themselves. It referred to paragraph 10 of the Supreme Court’s judgment in Anju Garg v. Deepak Kumar Garg (2022 INSC 1033), which said that it is the sacrosanct duty of the husband to provide financial support to the wife and minor children, and that Section 125 is a measure of social justice that falls within Article 15(3), reinforced by Article 39. The Court also referred to Chapter XI, Verse 10 of the Manusmriti, with its own English translation, as a source for the duty to maintain.
In view of the submissions, the Court modified the Family Court’s order of 22.12.2025. It directed the Principal Judge, Family Court, Kanpur Nagar, and the concerned higher authority of Indian Bank, District Unnao, to deduct 25% of the husband’s gross salary after excluding the income tax deducted, from his salary account, and to credit it to the verified bank account of the wife. The Family Court was also directed to pass an order to that effect addressed to the bank’s higher authority. The revision was disposed of with these directions.
Appearances: For the Revisionists: Sri Diwas Verma, Advocate. For Opposite Party No. 2: Sri Bhole Ram, Advocate. For the State: Sri Pankaj Kumar, A.G.A.
Case Title: Pinki Verma and Another v. State of U.P. and Another, Criminal Revision No. 1465 of 2026
!["No Loudspeakers For Azan, No Fundamental Right To Create Noise," Says Allahabad HC To Two Mosques [Read Judgment]](/secure/uploads/2020/01/lj_4995_Allahabad_HC_AZAN.jpg)
