The Allahabad High Court has ruled that a monthly maintenance amount of ₹2,500 is too little for a middle-class woman to even afford basic living expenses.
Justice Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra made this observation while hearing a plea filed by Shilpi Sharma. She had challenged a family court order under Section 125 of the CrPC that directed her husband, Rahul Sharma, to pay her ₹2,500 per month as interim maintenance.
Shilpi argued that the amount was unfair and inadequate, considering her husband’s alleged income of over ₹4 lakh per month. She also highlighted contradictions in his claims, pointing out that despite declaring an income of only ₹12,000, his lifestyle included hiring a driver and domestic help. She stated she needed at least ₹50,000 monthly to meet her expenses.
She further requested that the maintenance be made effective from the date she filed her application in September 2014, so she could maintain the lifestyle she had while living with her husband.
Rahul, however, argued that he resigned from his job in 2016, his financial condition worsened, and his wife left the matrimonial home without reason. He also claimed that Shilpi was earning at least ₹15,000 per month in 2017 and should not be entitled to maintenance. The Court rejected these arguments.
The Court noted that Rahul had repeatedly avoided paying even the small maintenance amounts previously ordered. In fact, in 2017, the High Court had enhanced the interim maintenance to ₹5,000 based on his income of ₹5 lakh, but he failed to comply, forcing Shilpi to file a contempt petition.
It also observed that Rahul was likely hiding his present employment details to avoid paying higher maintenance. Considering his past lifestyle, family background, and qualifications as an engineer, the Court held that the awarded sum was far too low for today’s cost of living.
The Court then directed an increase in maintenance:
- ₹5,000 per month from September 1, 2014, to November 2024.
- ₹10,000 per month from December 2024 onward, until the family court decides under Section 127 CrPC.
With this ruling, the Court allowed Shilpi’s revision petition.
Case Title: Shilpi Sharma vs Rahul Sharma
Be a part our social media community:
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/IndianMan.in?mibextid=ZbWKwL
Instagram:
https://www.instagram.com/indianman.in?igsh=MWZ2N3N0ZmpwM3l3cw==
