Case at a Glance
A wife and her minor daughter challenged a Kanpur Nagar Family Court order granting them Rs 19,000 a month under Section 125 CrPC, saying it was inadequate; they had sought Rs 40,000. The husband, a bank employee, told the High Court he was ready to have 25% of his salary deducted. The Allahabad High Court modified the order and directed that 25% of the husband’s gross salary, after excluding only income tax, be deducted by his employer bank and credited to the wife’s account. Calling the duty to maintain both legal and ‘pious’, it relied on Anju Garg v. Deepak Kumar Garg, (2022) 09 SC CK 0119 and quoted a verse from the Manusmriti.
The wife and the couple’s minor daughter filed Case No. 149 of 2021 under Section 125 CrPC before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Kanpur Nagar. By order dated 22 December 2025, the Family Court awarded a monthly allowance of Rs 19,000. They had claimed Rs 40,000 a month. The husband works as a Window Operator with Indian Bank in District Unnao; the judgment does not record his salary figures.
In revision, the wife and daughter relied on Dr. Kulbhushan Kumar v. Raj Kumari, (1970) 10 SC CK 0033, (1970) 3 SCC 129, and Kalyan Dey Chowdhury v. Rita Dey Chowdhury, (2017) 04 SC CK 0160, (2017) 14 SCC 200, to argue that 25% of the husband’s income is a fair benchmark, and on the Supreme Court’s decision in Deepa Joshi v. Gaurav Joshi, (2026) 04 SC CK 0499 (2026) to argue that voluntary loan repayments should not reduce the income base, so that only income tax should be deducted from gross salary. The husband’s counsel stated that there was no chance of the couple living together and that he was ready for 25% of his salary to be deducted towards maintenance.
The Key Question Before the Court
Was the Family Court’s award of Rs 19,000 a month adequate, and how should maintenance from a salaried husband be computed and paid?
A Legal and a ‘Pious’ Obligation
Justice Praveen Kumar Giri relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Anju Garg v. Deepak Kumar Garg, 2022 INSC 1033, which discusses the object of Section 125 CrPC (now Section 144 BNSS) and draws on Chaturbhuj v. Sita Bai, (2007) 11 SC CK 0118. Adopting that reasoning, the Court observed that “not only legal but a pious obligation is upon the husband to maintain his chaste wife”. The duty, the Court said, extends to minor children as well.
The Court also cited Chapter XI, Verse 10 of the Manusmriti, rendering it as: “Aged parents, a virtuous wife, and an infant son must be maintained (supported), even by performing a hundred misdeeds”. Instead of fixing a new rupee figure, it adopted the 25% benchmark that the husband himself accepted, and directed that the base be the husband’s gross salary with only income tax excluded. The judgment does not separately discuss the loan-repayment argument; the formula it adopted deducts only income tax.
What the Court Actually Held
- The Family Court’s order dated 22 December 2025 was modified.
- 25% of the husband’s gross salary, after excluding income tax, shall be deducted as maintenance from his salary account.
- The Family Court, Kanpur Nagar, and the higher authority of Indian Bank, District Unnao, were directed to effect the deduction and credit it to the wife’s verified bank account; the Family Court is to pass a formal order to the employer.
- The revision was disposed of in these terms.
Why This Judgment Matters
- It shows courts using a percentage-of-salary formula with deduction at source, which avoids repeated execution proceedings for unpaid maintenance.
- Fixing the base as gross salary minus only income tax prevents a husband from shrinking his ‘income’ through other deductions.
- It restates that maintenance under Section 125 CrPC / Section 144 BNSS is a strong legal, and not merely moral, duty.
What Should Advocates Take Away From the Judgment?
For Wives and Children
- If the husband is a salaried employee, ask the court to direct his employer to deduct maintenance at source.
- A 25% share of income is a recognised benchmark; argue that the base should be gross salary less income tax.
For Counsel
- Cite Kulbhushan Kumar, Kalyan Dey Chowdhury and Anju Garg for the 25% benchmark and the nature of the obligation.
- Ask the Family Court to issue a formal order to the employer so the deduction is enforceable.
Key Takeaways
- Maintenance raised from a fixed Rs 19,000 to 25% of gross salary less income tax.
- Deduction is to be made at source by the husband’s employer bank.
- The husband’s duty to maintain is described as both legal and pious.
- The Family Court must issue a formal order to the employer.
Frequently Asked Questions
How much maintenance did the High Court order?
25% of the husband’s gross salary, after excluding income tax, to be deducted from his salary account and credited to the wife’s bank account.
Why did the court cite the Manusmriti?
To underline the moral dimension of the duty to maintain dependants. It quoted Chapter XI, Verse 10, which says aged parents, a virtuous wife and an infant son must be maintained, alongside the Supreme Court’s decision in Anju Garg.
Can maintenance be deducted directly from a husband’s salary?
Yes. Here the Court directed the employer bank to deduct the amount and asked the Family Court to pass a formal order to the employer.
Conclusion
The judgment is brief, but its formula is practical: a percentage of salary, computed on gross pay less income tax, deducted at source. For families dependent on a salaried spouse, that structure can matter more than the figure itself.
Practical takeaway: Where the respondent is salaried, seek a percentage-based award with deduction at source through the employer, and press for gross salary less income tax as the base.
Read the full judgment on CourtKutchehry: View judgment →
For more judgments, legal opinions and case analysis, visit courtkutchehry.com