Anil Sahu Vs State of U.P. and Another (Allahabad High Court)
The Allahabad High Court heard a criminal revision challenging the order dated 13.11.2025 passed by the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court No. 03, Bareilly in Criminal Case No. 36 of 2024 arising from an interim maintenance application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. filed by the opposite party.
The revisionist sought setting aside of the impugned order. During the hearing, learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that the revisionist was willing to pay one-fourth of his net salary to the opposite party towards maintenance in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court and requested modification of the impugned order accordingly.
The learned A.G.A. relied upon the Supreme Court decision in Kulbhushan Kumar Vs. Raj Kumari, (1970) 3 SCC 129, submitting that the Court had held that income tax and compulsory provident fund contributions are deductible while determining “free income,” whereas deductions such as house rent and electricity charges are not permissible. The judgment also upheld maintenance subject to a limit of 25% of the income as found by the income tax authorities.
The learned A.G.A. further relied upon Kalyan Dey Chowdhury Vs. Rita Dey Chowdhury, AIR 2017 SC 2383, wherein the Supreme Court, following Kulbhushan Kumar, observed that 25% of the husband’s net salary would be just and proper as maintenance to the wife. The judgment also stated that permanent alimony must be commensurate with the status of the parties and the paying spouse’s capacity, while maintenance depends upon the factual situation of each case. The Supreme Court noted that although the High Court had enhanced maintenance based on the husband’s increased net salary, it reduced the amount considering the husband’s second marriage and child.
