A wife's modest income does not bar maintenance insufficient to sustain the matrimonial lifestyle.

The respondent-wife filed a petition under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking maintenance from the petitioner-husband.

The Principal Judge, Family Court, Mandi, awarded her maintenance of ₹10,000 per month from the date of filing of the petition, clarifying that the amount included the ₹2,500 per month awarded to her in proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (“DV Act”).

The husband challenged the order, contending that he earned only ₹10,000 per month as a clerk in his father’s business, while the wife earned approximately ₹8,000 per month as a teacher, and that he was also maintaining the parties’ son.

The wife argued that the husband belonged to a financially well-off family, that his father’s business involved multi-crore transactions, and that her employment did not disentitle her from claiming maintenance.

In cross-examination, the husband admitted that his father conducted business from a three-storeyed commercial premises, that his father was 75 years old, that he was his parents’ only son, and that their business transactions were multi-crore transactions.

1. Whether the Family Court erred in awarding the wife total maintenance of ₹10,000 per month, including the amount payable under the DV Act, despite the husband’s asserted monthly income of ₹10,000?

2. Whether the wife’s employment and alleged income of ₹8,000 per month disentitled her from receiving maintenance under Section 125 CrPC?

3. Whether the maintenance awarded was excessive in view of the husband’s alleged responsibility to maintain the parties’ son and the wife’s receipt of maintenance under the DV Act?

The Court applied Section 125 CrPC, which authorises maintenance for a wife unable to maintain herself where the husband has sufficient means but neglects or refuses to maintain her.

It also considered the principle that amounts awarded under overlapping maintenance proceedings, including proceedings under the DV Act, may be adjusted to prevent duplication; accordingly, the Family Court directed that the total maintenance payable under Section 125 CrPC and the DV Act would not exceed ₹10,000 per month.

Relying on Rajnesh v. Neha, (2021) 2 SCC 324, the Court held that maintenance must secure more than bare subsistence and must be assessed with reference to whether the wife’s income enables her to maintain herself in accordance with the standard of living enjoyed in the matrimonial home.

The Court further applied the principle that a husband is legally and morally obliged to maintain his wife, and that the wife’s independent income does not automatically bar maintenance where that income is insufficient for her reasonable support.

The Court rejected the husband’s assertion that his liability should be assessed solely on the basis of his claimed salary of ₹10,000 per month.

His admissions showed that he belonged to a well-off business family, was the only son of his elderly father, and was connected with a business involving multi-crore transactions.

The Court treated his attempt to subsequently characterise the business as exclusively belonging to his father as an effort to dilute his earlier admission.

In that factual context, a total award of ₹10,000 per month—including ₹2,500 already payable under the DV Act and therefore amounting effectively to ₹7,500 under Section 125 CrPC—was held not to be excessive.

The wife’s reported salary of ₹8,000 per month did not disentitle her to maintenance because the relevant consideration was whether her income was sufficient to maintain herself in accordance with the matrimonial standard of living.

The Court concluded that even her salary together with the maintenance awarded did not enable her to match the lifestyle associated with the husband’s family circumstances.

It held that the award was neither excessive nor legally infirm, that the husband’s asserted salary could not be viewed in isolation from his actual family and business circumstances, and that the wife’s modest employment income did not bar her claim under Section 125 CrPC.

The pending miscellaneous application was also disposed of, with directions to release the amount deposited by the husband in the wife’s bank account.