MANNAN @ ABDUL MANNAN v. STATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER, 2026

The revisionist, Mannan @ Abdul Mannan, was the husband of opposite party no. 2, the respondent-wife.

The parties were married on 3 December 2016 according to Muslim rites and customs.

The wife alleged that after marriage she was subjected to cruelty and harassment in connection with demands for additional dowry.

According to the wife, the matrimonial circumstances ultimately compelled her to leave the matrimonial home and reside with her parental family.

She further alleged that despite having sufficient means, the husband neglected and refused to maintain her.

On these grounds, she approached the Family Court under Section 125 CrPC seeking maintenance of ₹20,000 per month.

The husband admitted the marital relationship but disputed the allegations made by the wife.

He claimed that the wife had left the matrimonial home voluntarily.

He also contended that he had never neglected her and had made efforts towards reconciliation.

The husband claimed that he was an illiterate person who had worked as a driver and earned approximately ₹5,000 per month, but was subsequently unemployed.

He further alleged that the wife was earning money through sewing and embroidery work.

The husband also relied upon the fact that the wife had been allotted a residential house under the Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana.

According to him, these circumstances demonstrated that the wife was capable of maintaining herself and that the maintenance awarded by the Family Court exceeded his financial capacity.

The Family Court examined the evidence and found that the wife had sufficient cause for residing separately.

The Family Court also found that there was no reliable evidence establishing that the wife possessed an independent and sufficient source of income enabling her to maintain herself.

The Family Court consequently directed the husband to pay ₹4,000 per month from the date of institution of the proceedings and ₹5,000 per month from the date of the Family Court's order.

The husband challenged the Family Court's order before the Allahabad High Court through the present criminal revision.

The Court first explained that the purpose of Section 125 CrPC is to prevent destitution and vagrancy and to provide a swift and effective remedy to a wife who is unable to maintain herself.

Relying upon Chaturbhuj v. Sita Bai, the Court reiterated that the expression “unable to maintain herself” does not require the wife to be absolutely destitute before she can claim maintenance.

Referring to Bhuwan Mohan Singh v. Meena, the Court emphasized that maintenance proceedings are intended to enable a wife to live with dignity rather than be reduced to financial deprivation.

The Court also relied upon Shamima Farooqui v. Shahid Khan for the principle that an able-bodied husband cannot evade his maintenance obligation merely by asserting an inability or unwillingness to earn.

The husband had alleged that the wife earned through sewing and embroidery work.

The High Court found that no cogent evidence had been produced to establish that the wife had a regular and sufficient source of income capable of meeting her maintenance requirements.

The Court therefore held that mere assertions contained in pleadings cannot be treated as proof of financial independence.

The Court separately considered the husband's reliance upon the house allotted to the wife under a welfare scheme.

It held that allotment of a residential house under a welfare scheme cannot be treated as a source of livelihood so as to disentitle the wife from claiming maintenance.

The Court therefore distinguished between having a place to live and having an independent source of income sufficient to meet one's living expenses.

On the husband's alleged unemployment, the High Court relied upon the Family Court's finding that he was a skilled driver and an able-bodied person capable of earning.

The Court held that an able-bodied husband cannot avoid his statutory obligation merely by asserting that he is unemployed or earns a meagre amount.

The Court further found that the maintenance fixed by the Family Court—₹4,000 per month from the institution of the proceedings and ₹5,000 per month from the date of the order—was modest and justified considering the prevailing cost of living.

With regard to revisional jurisdiction, the High Court held that it does not function as an appellate court merely because another possible interpretation of the evidence exists.

The Court found no manifest illegality, perversity, material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the Family Court's findings.

Accordingly, the criminal revision was dismissed.

A government-allotted house cannot automatically be treated as a recurring source of income.

Allegations that a wife is earning independently must be supported by cogent evidence.

A wife need not establish absolute destitution to invoke Section 125 CrPC.

The husband's earning capacity can be relevant even where he claims to be unemployed.

An able-bodied husband cannot ordinarily defeat a maintenance claim through a bare assertion of unemployment.

Maintenance is intended to protect against destitution and financial deprivation and to facilitate a life of dignity.

The amount of maintenance must be considered in light of the circumstances and prevailing cost of living.

Revisional jurisdiction is limited and cannot ordinarily be used for wholesale reappreciation of evidence.

The judgment reinforces the distinction between shelter under a welfare scheme and actual financial means of livelihood.