Fixing maintenance for wife at 25% of husband's net income not mandatory: Court
The Allahabad High Court has clarified that the widely cited norm of awarding a wife 25% of her husband's net salary as maintenance is only
The Allahabad High Court has clarified that the widely cited norm of awarding a wife 25% of her husband's net salary as maintenance is only a broad guideline and not a mandatory rule, observing that courts have the discretion to fix a higher or lower amount depending on the facts of each case. The court also held that "net income" for calculating maintenance generally refers to earnings after mandatory deductions and taxes, and not the gross salary. Read Full Story Justice Achal Sachdev made the observations while deciding two connected criminal revision petitions: one filed by a divorced woman, Pinki alias Preeti, seeking enhancement of the Rs 12,000 monthly maintenance granted by a family court in Kanpur Dehat and the other by her former husband, Shri Jai Prakash, challenging the award.
The high court reiterated that a decree of divorce does not by itself disentitle a legally wedded wife from claiming maintenance if she is unable to maintain herself, has not remarried and is not living in adultery. "The object of maintenance is to ensure that the wife is able to live with dignity and not merely survive," the court observed. It noted that the woman had no independent source of income, while the husband had sufficient financial means. The husband was drawing a gross monthly salary of Rs 86,674, with Rs 67,043 credited to his bank account after deductions.
Referring to the Supreme Court's judgment in Kalyan Dey Chowdhury vs Rita Dey Chowdhury Nee Nandy (2017), the court said the 25% benchmark should be treated only as a guiding principle. It further found that the family court had fixed the maintenance amount without properly considering the husband's admitted income, prevailing inflation or documentary evidence on record. The husband had also failed to submit an affidavit detailing his assets and liabilities as mandated by the Supreme Court in Rajnesh vs Neha. While noting that a revisional court ordinarily cannot alter the quantum of maintenance unless there is a glaring error or perversity in the lower court's findings, the high court held that the family court had ignored material evidence and arrived at an unsupported conclusion.
It therefore set aside the finding on quantum and enhanced the wife's monthly maintenance from Rs 12,000 to Rs 20,000, payable from the date of the original application, in its July 10 judgment. Ends
The BriefWire