The Allahabad High Court recently upheld the decision of a family court allowing around 25 per cent of a man’s pension as monthly maintenance to his estranged wife. The court said the amount of Rs 7,000, which had been allowed, could not be considered excessive in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court.
The bench of Justice Surendra Singh referred to the ruling of the top court in Kulbhushan Kumar vs Raj Kumari (1970), where it was held that 25 per cent of the husband’s net salary will be a just and proper amount to be awarded as maintenance to the wife. The court observed that, in the case at hand, 25 per cent of the man’s monthly pension was calculated to be Rs 8,664, whereas the family court had granted only Rs 7,000 as monthly maintenance to his estranged wife.
The court, therefore, said the maintenance granted to the opposite party (wife) cannot be considered as excessive vis-a-vis the monthly pension of the revisionist (husband); rather, it is on the lower side, said the bench while upholding the family court’s decision.
The man, a retired 79-year-old, moved the high court challenging two orders of the family court that had approved his estranged wife’s request for maintenance under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), and had also turned down his plea under Section 127 of the CrPC for reduction in maintenance.
Before the high court, the man’s counsel argued that the woman claiming to be his wife had never been legally married to him, and her two children were not biologically related to him. The court was told that the man was not living in the village, where the woman lived with his brother, and that he had his own family including a wife and two sons in the city. Further, it was noted that the family court had previously denied the man’s request for DNA testing.
Apart from that, the counsel contended that in determining the maintenance allowance, the family court erroneously included income from agricultural land located in the man’s village, despite his assertion that he did not receive any income from it. The counsel clarified that the man solely relied on a pension amounting to Rs 34,656.
The HC observed that before the family court, the woman had placed documentary evidence that supported her claim to be the legally wedded wife. The man had failed to provide any proof of his legal marriage to his alleged wife in the city.
The court stressed that the proceedings under Section 125 CrPC are summary in nature, in which only prima facie it has to be seen that the applicant is the wife of the opposite party. “It is a social legislation enacted for protecting the wife, minor children and parents of a person from vagrancy and destitution,” it said.
Further, regarding the quantum of the maintenance, the single judge bench observed that even if it were computed based solely on the husband’s monthly pension, the amount allowed would still be less than 25 per cent of the pension. Therefore, the court held that there was no illegality, irregularity, or jurisdictional error in the impugned orders of the family court.
Comments
0 comment