The observation was made by Justice Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra while hearing a plea filed by Shilpi Sharma. She had challenged a family court order under Section 125 of the CrPC, which directed her husband, Rahul Sharma, to pay her ₹2,500 per month as interim maintenance.

The Allahabad high court has deemed a monthly maintenance amount of ₹2,500 as inadequate, stating that a middle-class woman can’t manage even a square meal with such a paltry sum.

Shilpi argued that the amount was grossly inadequate, considering her husband’s alleged substantial income exceeding ₹4 lakh per month. She also pointed out discrepancies in his claims, stating his lifestyle and expenses contradicted his declaration of earning ₹12,000 monthly.

She also submitted evidence of his extravagant lifestyle, including hiring a driver and domestic help, to fortify the claim that his income is much more than what he claims. She further asserted that she would require at least Rs—50,000 monthly for her day-to-day expenses.

Lastly, she also argued that the maintenance amount granted to her should be made effective from the day of filing her application (September 1, 2014) so that she may be able to live in the same status as she was accustomed to living when she was residing with her husband.

 On the other hand, the husband argued that he had resigned from his job in 2016 and thereafter, his financial condition deteriorated substantially. It was also submitted that his wife (revisionist) left her matrimonial home without any sufficient reason, never came back, and never attempted to restore her matrimonial relationship. This argument was, however, rejected by the HC.

It was also his case that his wife is a highly qualified lady who earned Rs.15,000/—per month from her own sources of income in the year 2017, and said amount must have increased at present due to the seven-year gap.

Lastly, it was contended that since she refused to live with the respondent without any sufficient reason, she is not entitled to maintenance in accordance with proviso (4) to Section 125 CrPC. The Court, however, rejected this argument.

At the outset, the Court noted that the husband’s conduct was objectionable, as he always avoided paying even a paltry sum of interim maintenance awarded in the impugned order on a regular basis. The Court observed that in 2017, the HC had enhanced the interim maintenance from Rs. 2,500 to Rs. 5,000 per month, based on the respondent’s income of Rs. 5 lakh per month, however, the husband failed to comply with that order forcing the wife to file a contempt application. The Court noted that the husband’s claim that he has to maintain his family members is not substantiated by the record, given that his father is a retired Government Officer and his brother belongs to an upper-middle-class family.

 The Court further noted that though the husband claimed himself as jobless at present, it appeared that he was concealing his present source of employment to avoid any enhancement in interim maintenance. However, taking into consideration the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, the huge expenditure incurred by the respondent in the past to lead a decent life, his family backgrounds, his professional qualification as Engineer before his resignation therefrom, the court emphasised that the amount of interim maintenance awarded to the revisionist was far less to meet out her financial requirements to lead even a simple life in today’s market conditions.

Therefore, the Court directed that the amount of interim maintenance awarded to the revisionist in the impugned order be enhanced from Rs.2500/—to Rs.5,000/—per month from the date of filing of application of interim maintenance dated September 01, 2014, to the date of the impugned order dated September 07, 2016, and thereafter up to November 2024. Thereafter, the court further directed that the husband will pay the revisionist interim maintenance at the rate of Rs.10,000/- per month from December 2024 during the pendency of the maintenance case before the family court, subject to any order passed by the trial court under Section 127 Cr.P.C. With this, the revision was allowed. 

Case title – Shilpy Sharma vs. Rahul Sharma