Smt. Pinki Alias Preeti v. State of U.P. and Another, 2026
Courts can award more or less than 25%, depending upon the circumstances of each case.
Judgement Details
Court
Allahabad High Court
Date of Decision
19 August 2026
Judges
Justice Achal Sachdev
Citation
Acts / Provisions
Facts of the Case
-
The wife, Pinki alias Preeti, sought maintenance under Section 125 CrPC from her husband.
-
The Family Court awarded her ₹12,000 per month.
-
The husband had obtained a divorce decree, but the wife had not remarried and claimed she had no sufficient independent income.
-
The husband earned a gross monthly salary of ₹86,674, with approximately ₹67,043 credited to his bank account.
-
The wife sought enhancement of maintenance, while the husband challenged the maintenance order.
-
The husband had not filed the required assets and liabilities affidavit.
-
The Family Court had not adequately considered the documentary evidence regarding the husband's actual income.
Issues
-
Whether the 25% net-salary benchmark for maintenance is mandatory or merely a broad guideline?
-
Whether a divorced wife who has not remarried and cannot maintain herself can claim maintenance?
-
Whether the Family Court properly considered the husband's actual income and financial capacity?
-
Whether a revisional court can interfere with maintenance when material evidence has been ignored?
-
Whether ₹12,000 per month was adequate maintenance in the facts of the case?
Judgement
-
The High Court allowed the wife's revision.
-
Maintenance was enhanced from ₹12,000 to ₹20,000 per month.
-
The enhanced maintenance was made payable from the date of the original maintenance application.
-
The husband's revision challenging the maintenance award was dismissed.
-
The Court held that the 25% benchmark is only a broad guideline, not a mandatory formula.
-
The Family Court had failed to properly consider the husband's actual income and relevant financial evidence.
-
The husband's failure to submit an assets and liabilities affidavit was also taken into account.
-
The Court found sufficient grounds to interfere with the Family Court's determination of the quantum.
Held
-
The 25% benchmark is not mandatory.
-
Maintenance must be based on the parties' actual financial circumstances, needs and standard of living.
-
Net income generally refers to income after mandatory deductions and taxes, rather than gross salary.
-
Divorce by itself does not automatically deprive a legally wedded wife of maintenance.
-
A revisional court can interfere where the lower court has ignored material evidence, acted perversely or misapplied settled principles.
-
The maintenance of ₹12,000 was inadequate and was therefore enhanced to ₹20,000 per month.
Analysis
-
The judgment makes it clear that the 25% rule should not be mechanically applied in maintenance proceedings.
-
The Court adopted a case-specific approach, requiring consideration of the husband's actual income and the wife's genuine financial needs.
-
The distinction between gross salary and net income is important because maintenance should ordinarily be assessed with reference to the income actually available after legitimate deductions.
-
The Court also reinforced the importance of financial disclosure under the principles laid down in Rajnesh v. Neha.
-
The husband's failure to provide a complete picture of his assets and liabilities weakened the basis on which the Family Court had assessed maintenance.
-
The judgment also confirms that divorce does not automatically terminate maintenance entitlement. The relevant statutory conditions must be examined.
-
Although revisional jurisdiction is normally limited, the High Court can intervene where the lower court's assessment is perverse or unsupported by the evidence.
-
The decision ultimately emphasises that maintenance is meant to enable a woman to live with dignity and not merely survive.