While dismissing a wife’s revision petition, the Allahabad High Court has held that if a wife obtains a government job, it constitutes a change in the circumstances and a sufficient ground to limit the maintenance amount to the period prior to the wife securing a government job.

The High Court was considering a revision filed by the wife under Sections 397, 401 of the CrPC read with Section 96(4) of the Family Court Act against the Judgment of the Family Court in a Maintenance Case filed under Section 125 of the CrPC, whereby the court had directed the opposite party husband to pay Rs 10,000 per month to the revisionist as maintenance.

The Single Bench of Justice Achal Sachdev held, “The underlying principle of section 125 Cr.P.C. now 144 BNSS and section 18 of Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act for awarding maintenance the claimant must be unable to maintain herself or themselves and if a wife obtain a government job it constitute a change in the circumstances and constitutes a sufficient ground to limit the maintenance amount to the period prior to the wife securing a government job.”

Advocate Ashwani Kumar Mishra represented the Revisionist, while Advocate Sheetala Prasad Pandey represented the Opposite Party.

Factual Background

The revisionist married the husband (opposite party) in 2017 according to Hindu rites and rituals and dowry. It was alleged that the husband and his family started harassing and torturing her due to the non-fulfilment of the demand for dowry. It was alleged that the husband had an illicit relationship with a girl with whom he wanted to establish a family. The revisionist lodged a first information report against her in-laws under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506, 316 of the IPC and sections 3, 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. It was the revisionist’s case that she is an educated, unemployed woman with no source of income. It was further claimed that her parents were also unable to support her.

Reasoning

The Bench, at the outset, explained that if a wife obtains a government job, it constitutes a change in the circumstances and constitutes a sufficient ground to limit the maintenance amount.

The Bench took note of the Trial Court’s observation that from the date of filing of the application under Section 125 CrPC, she did not have any sufficient source of income to support herself. However, she was selected for a government job, which she joined on February 9, 2024. It was in such circumstances that she was held entitled to get a maintenance amount of Rs 10,000 per month from the date of filing of the application, i.e. July 14, 2019, till February 8, 2024, before joining her job.

“Hence the impugned order dated 14.03.2024 passed by learned trial court is well reasoned and justified, therefore warrants no interference by this Court…”, the Bench concluded while dismissing the Revision.

Cause Title: A v. State of U.P. and Another (Neutral Citation: 2026:AHC:113439)

Appearance

Revisionist: Advocates Ashwani Kumar Mishra, Sandeep Kumar Keshari, Vivek Srivastava

Opposite Party: Advocate Sheetala Prasad Pandey, Government Advocate

Click here to read/download Order


Allahabad High CourtJustice Achal Sachdev

Tulip Kanth

Assistant Editor

Tulip Kanth is an Assistant Editor at Verdictum having over 5 years of experience in the field of legal journalism and editing. She extensively covers judgments of the Supreme Court, High Courts as well as Tribunals. She has previously worked with a legal publishing website where she oversaw the work of other editors and has also created updates on notifications of different Government Ministries. She holds an English Honours Degree from SGTB Khalsa College, Delhi University and has completed her LLB course with specialisation in Corporate Law from Amity University.