₹11 lakh salary no bar to maintenance when husband earned ₹40 lakh: Allahabad HC

On February 5, 2026, the Allahabad High Court sent out a pretty clear message: just because a woman is educated and earning doesn’t mean she automatically loses her right to maintenance. The judges said Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. isn’t only about stopping someone from falling into poverty. It’s also about making sure a wife can live with dignity - and in a way that matches the lifestyle she had during the marriage.The case started when a woman approached the family court asking for financial support from her husband. On January 4, 2025, the Family Court in Ghaziabad ordered the husband to pay her ₹15,000 per month from the date she filed her application. He wasn’t happy with that and moved the Allahabad High Court to challenge the order.Through his lawyers, Nitin Sharma and Parmeshwar Yadav, the husband argued that his wife was qualified, employed, and financially independent - so why should he pay maintenance? To back that up, they submitted her Income Tax Return and Form 16 from May 30, 2018, which showed she earned around ₹11.28 lakh annually.He also claimed she left the matrimonial home on her own, didn’t carry out her marital duties, and refused to stay with his elderly parents. On top of that, he said he had to leave his job to take care of his sick parents and was under financial pressure himself, suggesting he simply didn’t have the money to pay.The wife’s lawyer saw things differently. He defended the family court’s decision and said the husband hadn’t been fully honest about his own income and lifestyle. In fact, during earlier proceedings, the husband had admitted that between April 2018 and April 2020, he worked at J.P. Morgan and earned around ₹40 lakh a year. That, the wife’s side argued, clearly showed there was a big gap between their financial positions.They also pointed out something important: just because a woman earns doesn’t mean she can be denied maintenance - especially when her income is nowhere close to her husband’s.After hearing both sides, the High Court noted that the husband’s main argument rested on one point - that his wife earns and therefore shouldn’t get maintenance. But he couldn’t show solid proof that his own income had dropped so drastically that he was unable to support her.The judges said that even if the wife had some income, the documents on record showed a clear difference in their earning capacity and overall financial status. Her salary, they observed, wasn’t enough to maintain the same standard of living she enjoyed while living with her husband.As for his claims about financial hardship, the court wasn’t convinced. The judges said these were just statements without proper evidence. There was nothing reliable on record to prove that he lacked the means to fulfill his legal duty.The High Court also leaned on earlier Supreme Court rulings in 'Shailja v. Khobbanna' (2018) and 'Rajnesh v. Neha' (2021). Both judgments make it clear that simply earning an income does not automatically disqualify a wife from receiving maintenance. What really matters is whether that income is enough for her to live at a similar standard as she did during the marriage.In the end, the court found the ₹15,000 monthly amount reasonable, given the husband’s earning capacity and status. It saw no legal error in the family court’s order.With that, the husband’s plea was dismissed.