Maintenance Must Be Commensurate With Husband's Earning Capacity During Intervening Period: MPHC

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that maintenance amounts should not be fixed at a uniform rate retrospectively without considering the husband's actual income fluctuations during the years the litigation remained pending. In a significant clarification, the Gwalior Bench modified a Family Court order to ensure that maintenance for the past decade is computed proportionately to the husband's annual salary increments.

A Single Bench of Justice Amit Seth was hearing two cross-revisions one filed by the husband challenging the quantum and the other by the wife seeking enhancement against an order of the Family Court, Gwalior. The primary question before the Court was whether a lump-sum monthly maintenance amount could be applied uniformly from the date of application, regardless of the husband's significantly lower income in earlier years.

Court's Rationale on Proportional Maintenance

The Court observed that while the right to maintenance dates back to the filing of the application, the amount must be realistic and reflect the financial capacity of the husband at different points in time. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "While Rajnesh vs. Neha (supra) settled the date from which maintenance is payable, it does not, either expressly or by necessary implication, holds that a uniform lump-sum amount of maintenance can be granted retrospectively from the date of filing of application without the same being commensurate to the actual salary earned by the husband during the intervening years."

Referencing Bhagwan Dutt v. Kamla Devi ( "(1975) 2 SCC 386": 1974 CaseBase(SC) 40), the Court reiterated that the object of Section 125 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is to prevent vagrancy while maintaining a standard modestly consistent with the family's status. It further noted that following Kalyan Dey Chowdhury vs. Rita Dev Chowdhury Nee Nandy ( "2017 AIR (SCW) 2383": 2017 CaseBase(SC) 654) and Kulbushan Kunwar v. Smt. Raj Kumari, a fixation of 25% of the husband's net salary is generally considered just and proper.

Observations on Criminal Trial Impact

Addressing the husband's plea to expunge certain remarks about cruelty, the Court clarified that findings under Section 125 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 are made in summary proceedings and do not bind the criminal court during a trial for Section 498-A of Indian Penal Code, 1860.

The Court has the following directions:

"I. In view of the fact that the entitlement of the wife to receive maintenance has not been challenged by the non-applicant/husband, and the challenge is putforth only with regard to the quantum of maintenance, the finding recorded by the learned Family Court as regards the entitlement of the applicant/wife to receive maintenance from the non-applicant/husband under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. is affirmed.

II. The quantum of maintenance at Rs. 20,000/- per month as determined and fixed on the basis of the admitted net monthly salary of the non-applicant/husband on the date of adjudication at Rs. 70,499/- per month by the Family Court is found to be just and equitable in the facts and circumstances of the present case.

III. The direction issued by the Family Court for the amount of maintenance being payable from 04.02.2016, i.e., the date of filing of the application before the Family Court is in accordance with the mandate of Rajnesh vs. Neha (supra) and therefore, does not call for any interference. However, the quantum of maintenance for the retrospective period from 04.02.2016 to 31.03.2024 may not be applied at the uniform sum of Rs.20,000/- per month, instead, it shall be computed in the same proportion of the net monthly salary of the non-applicant/husband for each respective financial year during the said retrospective period.

IV. Taking into consideration the maintenance of Rs. 20,000/- per month as determined by the Family Court at the time of adjudication, for the purpose of computing the retrospective maintenance from 04.02.2016 to 31.03.2024, the non-applicant/husband shall produce the Income Tax Returns for each financial year commencing from the financial year 2015-2016 up to the year 2023-2024 before the learned Executing Court within a period of 30 days from the date of passing of this order.

V. Accordingly, the total amount of maintenance payable to the wife up to the date of passing of the order dated 30.12.2024 shall be quantified, and the said amount shall be paid by the husband within a period of one month from the date of such determination.

VI. With effect from 30.12.2024, i.e., the date of the impugned order and going forward, the maintenance shall be payable at the rate of Rs.20,000/- per month, until the same is varied or modified by a competent court.

VII. The prayer of the applicant/wife for enhancement of maintenance beyond Rs.20,000/- per month stands rejected.

VIII. ...in case the non-applicant/husband fails to furnish his income tax details before the learned Executing Court within a period of 30 days from the date of passing of this order, the applicant/wife shall be entitled to seek recovery of the maintenance amount at the rate of Rs.20,000/- per month with effect from the date of filing of the application, i.e., 04.02.2016."

Background:

The marriage took place on May 7, 2015. Shortly after, the wife alleged that she was harassed for a dowry of Rs. 5 Lakhs and a Swift Dzire car. She claimed she was thrown out of her matrimonial home in December 2015 and subsequently filed an FIR under Section 498-A of Indian Penal Code, 1860. She filed for maintenance in February 2016 under Section 125 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

The Family Court, in December 2024, directed the husband (a Sub-Engineer) to pay Rs. 20,000 per month from the date of the application (2016). The husband argued that his salary in 2016 was only Rs. 29,711 and paying Rs. 20,000 for that period amounted to nearly 68% of his income, whereas Rajnesh vs. Neha ( "2021 (2) SCC 324": 2020 CaseBase(SC) 717) suggests a 25% cap. The High Court agreed that while the entitlement was clear, the retrospective application needed to be proportional to his actual earnings for each financial year.

Case Details:
Case No.: Criminal Revision No.1050/2025 and Criminal Revision No.1158/2025
NeutralCitation: 2026:MPHC-GWL: 13841
Case Title: Rakesh Kashyap Versus Smt Ragini Yadav
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): Shri Prashant Sharma and Shri Upendra Yadav. Advocates
For the Respondent(s): Shri Ashok Kumar Ahirwar. Advocate

Source: 2026 CaseBase(MP) 5