₹2,500 Can't Buy Even a Square Meal: Allahabad HC Raises Interim Maintenance to ₹10,000
The Allahabad Hihg Court in in the case of Shilpy Sharma v. Rahul Sharma delivered a significant judgment addressing the financial hardships of women seeking interim maintenance, the High Court observed that it is “almost impossible for a woman belonging to a middle-class family to even have a square meal” with a meager sum of ₹2,500 per month. The Court enhanced the interim maintenance amount to ₹10,000
BACKGROUND
The revisionist, Shilpy Sharma, had filed a criminal revision , challenging the order of the Additional Family Court, which had awarded her an interim maintenance of ₹2,500 per month. Dissatisfied with the quantum, she sought enhancement of the amount, citing her inability to sustain herself and maintain a standard of living comparable to what she was accustomed to during her marriage.
Her marriage to Rahul Sharma was solemnized in 2007, and she was compelled to leave her matrimonial home due to alleged cruelty. She argued that her estranged husband was financially well-off, earning an income exceeding ₹4 lakh per month, while she had no independent source of income.
COURT'S OBSERVATIONS
Justice Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra noted that the interim maintenance of ₹2,500 awarded by the Family Court was grossly inadequate in light of today’s economic conditions. The Court remarked: “It is almost impossible for a woman who belongs to a middle-class family to even have a square meal from the paltry amount of ₹2,500.”
The Court criticized the respondent’s inconsistent statements regarding his income, observing that he had claimed to be jobless but continued to lead a lifestyle involving significant expenditures. The revisionist had provided evidence of the respondent's past salary, family background, and expenditures, which suggested that he was concealing his actual income. Taking note of these, Court enhanced the interim maintenance to ₹5,000 per month from the date of filing the application (September 1, 2014) until November 2024. Starting December 2024, the maintenance was further increased to ₹10,000 per month, to be paid on the 10th of each month during the pendency of the maintenance proceedings before the Family Court.
The Court relied on key judgments, including Rajnesh v. Neha [(2021) 2 SCC 324], where the Supreme Court directed uniformity in maintenance orders and emphasized the need for disclosure of assets and liabilities. It also referred to Badshah v. Sou. Urmila Badshah Godse [(2014) 1 SCC 188], which underlined the purposive interpretation of Section 125 Cr.P.C. to achieve social justice.
The bench reiterated that maintenance must be commensurate with the financial status of the husband and the standard of living the wife was accustomed to during the marriage. Further, it held that an able-bodied husband is presumed capable of earning sufficient income to support his wife.
Cause Title: Shilpy Sharma vs. Rahul Sharma
Citation: 2024: AHC: 193479
Date: December-10-2024
Bench: Justice Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra
[Read/Download order]
