The Allahabad High Court has ruled that considering the pension as part of the husband's monthly income, allocating 25% of it as maintenance is deemed reasonable, not excessive.

The Court drew upon the precedent set in Kulbhushan Kumar Vs. Raj Kumari, where the Supreme Court affirmed that...

“25% of the husband's net salary would be just and proper to be awarded as maintenance allowance to the wife. The amount of permanent alimony awarded to the wife must be befitting the status of the parties and the financial capacity of the husband to make the payment.”

This recent decision of the Supreme Court in Kalyan Dey Chaudhary Vs. Rita Dey Chaudhary Nee Nandy echoes the principles established in Kulbhushan Kumar Vs. Raj Kumari, wherein the Apex Court granted the wife 25% of the husband's net income as maintenance.

The alleged husband contested the decision of the Additional Principal Judge, IIIrd, Family Court, Allahabad, which granted maintenance of Rs. 7000/- per month to the opposing party no.2. The counsel representing the alleged husband argued that the opposing party no.2 was not lawfully wedded to him, and her children were not his offspring. It was further contended that despite requesting a DNA test, the Trial Court did not address the application.

The contention was raised that the trial Court's order relied on assumptions and speculation without a thorough assessment. It was argued that the opposing party was generating income from selling crops and engaging in agricultural work on their farm. Additionally, it was pointed out that her sons and daughters were independently established in their lives.

Additionally, it was argued that the petitioner was married to Gayatri Devi and had two sons with her, one of whom had unfortunately passed away. It was further submitted that the petitioner's brother had hired the opposing party and had issued threats to the petitioner, warning him against accessing agricultural land or else face repercussions. The argument contended that the petitioner's brother, in collusion with the opposing party, had filed several cases against him.

The defense emphasized that the petitioner, a 79-year-old retired government employee undergoing medical treatment, had been inaccurately assessed by the Trial Court, which mistakenly included agricultural income alongside his pension before determining the maintenance amount.

On the contrary, the opposing party asserted that she was lawfully married to the petitioner and had children with him. Subsequently, the petitioner relocated for his government employment and began residing with Gayatri Devi.

The Court noted that the Trial Court had affirmed the petitioner's marriage with the opposing party due to the absence of oral or documentary evidence regarding his marriage to Gayatri Devi. Additionally, the Court ruled that reliance on service records mentioning Gayatri Devi as the petitioner's wife and her medical reports couldn't suffice as evidence to establish the petitioner's marriage to Gayatri Devi.

The Court drew upon the precedent set in Anju Garg and Another Vs. Deepak Kumar Garg, wherein the Supreme Court emphasized that the purpose of Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) is to alleviate the plight of a woman compelled to depart from her matrimonial residence by ensuring she has the resources necessary to support herself and her children.

Concluding that the marriage between the parties was legitimate, the Court determined that 25% of the petitioner's monthly income, derived from his pension, should be allocated to the wife. Consequently, the Court augmented the maintenance granted by the Trial Court from Rs. 7000/- per month to Rs. 8664/- per month. The Court reasoned that the maintenance awarded by the Trial Court was inadequate in comparison to the petitioner's monthly pension.

Case Title: Matapher vs. State of U.P. and Another 2024