Recently, the Allahabad High Court ruled that when calculating the monthly maintenance allowance owed to a wife under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), a husband is not permitted to deduct payments for LIC premiums, home loans, land purchase loan installments, or insurance policy premiums from his salary.

Citing the Supreme Court's precedent set in the case of Dr. Kulbhushan Kumar vs. Rajkumari 1970, a bench led by Justice Surendra Singh-I noted that only mandatory statutory deductions such as income tax can be subtracted from the husband's gross salary when calculating the maintenance amount.

The remarks were made by the single judge while rejecting a revision petition filed by Rana Pratap Singh (the husband/revisionist), who contested a family court's ruling instructing him to provide Rs. 15,000 to his wife (opposite party no. 1), as well as Rs. 5,000 each for his two children (until they reach the age of majority) under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC).

During the proceedings before the High Court, the counsel representing the Husband-revisionist, among other arguments, contended that the trial court overlooked the circumstance that the wife was living apart from him without valid justification. Additionally, it was asserted that she neglected her marital obligations despite a decree for the restitution of conjugal rights being issued against her by the relevant Family Court under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act.

Furthermore, it was argued that the trial court failed to consider the revisionist's monthly income, which stands at Rs. 40,000/- per month. It was highlighted that after deducting the installment for the loan taken to purchase land and the premium for LIC, his net income amounts to only Rs. 28,446/- per month. This contention was put forth while determining the maintenance allowance.

The revisionist also argued that his wife's entitlement to maintenance should be barred under Section 125(4) of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) due to her alleged extramarital relationship with his younger brother.

Taking into account the specifics of the case and the arguments put forward, the High Court observed that the wife had provided a certified copy of a Lok Adalat order that annulled the ex-parte judgment and order issued by the family court under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act. As a result, the High Court concluded that the family court's order was not operative.

Regarding the husband's claim that his wife was engaged in adultery, the Court noted that there was insufficient evidence to substantiate the revisionist's assertions that his wife had left his residence with his younger brother and was engaging in adultery with him.

Additionally, concerning the husband's gross salary, the Court noted that he is employed as a constable in the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF). Based on the salary slip provided by his wife, his salary for January 2023 was documented as Rs.65,773/-.

Importantly, the Court emphasized that only mandatory statutory deductions, such as income tax, can be deducted from the gross salary. Therefore, the Court stated that no deductions from the salary, as claimed by the husband, were permissible for payments towards LIC, home loan, installments for the land purchase loan, or insurance policy premiums.

Under these circumstances, considering the revisionist's monthly salary to be Rs.65,773/-, the Court affirmed the family court's order instructing him to provide Rs.15,000 to his wife (opposite party no.1), as well as Rs.5,000 each for his two children (until they reach the age of majority) under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC).

Case title - Rana Pratap Singh vs. Neetu Singh And 2 Others 2024