Allahabad High Court: Husband Cannot Deny Maintenance Merely Because Wife Is Educated, Upholds ₹20,000 Monthly Support

The Allahabad High Court has held that a wife cannot be denied maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure merely because she is educated or capable of earning. The Court observed that educational qualifications alone do not prove that a woman has sufficient independent income to maintain herself.

Justice Garima Prashad dismissed a criminal revision filed by Alok Tiwari, challenging a Family Court order directing him to pay ₹20,000 per month as maintenance to his estranged wife, Neha Shukla, from June 17, 2017, the date she filed the maintenance application.

The husband argued that his wife, who holds M.Sc. and B.Ed. degrees, earned through coaching classes and tuition. He also claimed that she was financially supported by her widowed mother, a retired headmistress receiving pension. He further submitted that after losing his job with Jaypee Group, he had only irregular income as a freelance Chartered Accountant.

The High Court rejected these arguments, noting that no evidence was produced to prove that the wife had any independent income. It clarified that a wife's educational qualifications or earning capacity cannot be treated as actual earnings, and the legal responsibility to maintain her remains with the husband, not her parents.

The Court also upheld the Family Court's finding that the wife had sufficient reason to live separately. It observed that she had faced continuous pressure to arrange money for purchasing a flat, which amounted to cruelty, even if the demand did not technically qualify as dowry. The Court further noted that the husband made no genuine effort to resume cohabitation and had made unsupported allegations about his wife's character and mental condition.

On the husband's financial capacity, the Court found that he continued to possess substantial earning potential. Being a qualified Chartered Accountant, he had worked at various places and admitted to previously earning around ₹90,000 per month. He also failed to produce income tax returns or financial records to support his claim of reduced income, allowing the Court to draw an adverse inference against him.

Finding no illegality in the Family Court's order, the High Court upheld the maintenance of ₹20,000 per month and dismissed the revision petition.

Case: Alok Tiwari v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another

Court: Allahabad High Court

Judge: Justice Garima Prashad

Decision Date: June 17, 2026