The Allahabad High Court recently modified a family court order directing a practising lawyer to pay maintenance to his wife, holding that courts must be mindful of the financial realities faced by advocates
in the early years of practice, when income is often uncertain and irregular.
Justice Madan Pal Singh partly allowed a criminal revision filed by Sri Hiralal against a May 16, 2024, order of the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Pilibhit, which had awarded Rs 5,000 per month as maintenance to his wife, Kamla Devi, under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The High Court reduced the amount to Rs 3,750 per month, payable from the date of the application.
The dispute arose from maintenance proceedings initiated by Kamla Devi, who claimed that her husband had sufficient means but had failed to provide for her. Accepting her plea, the family court directed Hiralal to pay monthly maintenance, observing that the amount was reasonable in view of prevailing living costs.
Hiralal challenged the order before the High Court, arguing that the family court had overestimated his financial capacity. He submitted that he had completed his law degree in 2016 and had only recently begun practising as an advocate in the district court under the guidance of a senior lawyer. He also stated that he was preparing for competitive examinations and had no stable source of income.
According to the advocate, his earnings were highly inconsistent. He told the court that on some days he earned only a few hundred rupees, while on others he earned nothing at all. In such circumstances, he argued, the direction to pay Rs 5,000 per month as maintenance was excessive and unsustainable.
The wife, supported by the state, opposed the revision and defended the family court’s order. It was contended that Hiralal was a practising lawyer with substantial income and that he owned agricultural land and residential properties. The respondents claimed that he earned significant rental income and was financially capable of paying the amount fixed by the family court.
After examining the record and hearing the parties, the High Court noted that the marital relationship between the parties was not in dispute. However, the court found that there was no documentary evidence to substantiate the claim that the husband had a fixed or stable income or that he earned the amounts alleged by the wife.
Justice Singh observed that it is common knowledge that lawyers at the initial stage of practice, particularly in district courts, often struggle to earn sufficient income and may face serious financial difficulties. The court noted that income in such cases is typically fluctuating and uncertain and cannot be presumed merely on the basis of the profession.
Referring to Supreme Court decisions in Rajnesh vs Neha, Kalyan Dey Chowdhury vs Rita Dey Chowdhury and Kulbhushan Kumar vs Raj Kumari, the High Court reiterated that while a husband has a legal obligation to maintain his wife, the quantum of maintenance must be reasonable and proportionate to his actual paying capacity.
Applying these principles, the court concluded that the maintenance amount of Rs 5,000 per month awarded by the family court was not commensurate with the husband’s established income profile and required modification. The court therefore reduced the monthly maintenance to Rs 3,750, while maintaining that the obligation to provide support continued.
The High Court clarified that any amount already paid by the husband towards maintenance would be adjusted. It further directed that if arrears remained unpaid, the same should be cleared in fifteen equal monthly instalments, with the first instalment to be paid on or before December 20, 2025, and subsequent instalments by the fourteenth day of each succeeding month.
The revision was accordingly partly allowed, with the family court’s order modified only to the extent of the quantum of maintenance.
