The Allahabad High Court observed that deduction from the gross salary for payment for premium of insurance or instalment of plots purchased cannot be taken into consideration while calculating maintenance.

The Court explained that the monthly salary of a party must be calculated based on the salary slip reiterating that only compulsory statutory deductions such as income tax could be reduced from the gross salary.

A Single Bench of Justice Surendra Singh observed, “Alleged deduction from the gross salary of the revisionist/husband due to payment for premium of insurance or instalment of plots purchased by him cannot be taken into consideration as no such deduction from gross salary is permissible under the law.

Advocate Ashok Kumar Shukla represented the revisionist, while Advocate Chandan Kumar Jaiswal appeared for the opposite party.

The husband in his written statement filed against the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. pleaded that his wife had done a course in computers and as a beautician. He also pleaded that his wife made an earning by giving tuition and other professional works, but did not submit any documentary evidence for the same. On the other hand, the wife had claimed that she had no such earnings and was financially dependent on her parents.

The Court reiterated the Supreme Court’s decision in Rajathi v. C. Ganesan, (1999) 6 SCC 326 where it was held that a husband was obligated to maintain his wife and children and therefore, the burden to show that he had no monetary means to discharge his obligation was on him.

The husband had also claimed that his wife had left their house after committing theft, but the court pointed out that the husband did not file an FIR for the same. Similarly, the husband had also alleged that his wife had planned to leave their matrimonial home with his brother, yet he did not provide any evidence suggesting the allegations of adultery.

Therefore, it cannot be concluded that his wife is living in adultery with the younger brother of the revisionist,” the Court remarked.

Consequently, the Court held that the trial Court had rightly and justly fixed the maintenance allowance payable to the wife.

Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the criminal revision.

Cause Title: XYZ v. ABC (Neutral Citation: 2024:AHC:54224)


Revisionist: Advocate Ashok Kumar Shukla

Opposite Party: Advocate Chandan Kumar Jaiswal

Click here to read/download the Order