Allahabad High Court upheld the Prayagraj Family Court’s order on interim maintenance for a wife
The court approved a 10% annual increase in the monthly maintenance amount
Justice Lakshmi Kant Shukla dismissed the husband’s criminal revision
The Allahabad High Court upheld a Family Court direction that interim maintenance for a wife will rise by 10% every year. It also dismissed the husband's criminal revision.
A bench led by Justice Lakshmi Kant Shukla declined to disturb the Prayagraj Family Court's order. The trial court had fixed maintenance at ₹3,000 per month from the date of application and ₹4,000 per month from the date of judgment, with a 10% annual increase built in.
The case turned only on that escalation clause. The husband did not dispute the Family Court's findings on the marital tie or on the wife's inability to earn her livelihood.
Family Court Order
The Family Court in Prayagraj had ordered payment of ₹3,000 a month from the date the maintenance application was filed. It later fixed the amount at ₹4,000 a month from the date of judgment.
The same order also said the maintenance would go up by 10% every year. That annual hike was the point in dispute before the High Court.
The husband limited his challenge to that clause. He did not challenge the findings on the marital relationship or the wife's inability to support herself. His argument was that the 10% yearly increase had no legal basis according to Live Law.
Court's Maintenance Reasoning
The High Court accepted the escalation clause. It said dearness is climbing by roughly 10% annually, and a maintenance figure kept unchanged would lose purchasing power over time.
The bench also observed that ₹4,000 a month "may only fulfil minimum basic needs". If the amount stayed fixed, the dependent wife and children would, over time, find it difficult to meet those basic needs.
Describing the Family Court's approach as an "innovative" one, the bench remarked: "It is very surprising that such an innovative thought has not come to the mind of this Court. Accordingly, the steps taken by the Trial Court deserve to be welcomed and is appreciated". On that basis, the High Court found no reason to intervene.
Opposition Arguments Raised
The wife opposed the husband's plea, and the State joined her.
They argued that an automatic yearly rise would save the wife from returning to court repeatedly for an increase. They also cited the heavy pendency of cases as a reason to avoid fresh litigation.
The High Court agreed with those submissions. It accepted that the trial court's order offered a new way to keep the wife and children from filing another application seeking more maintenance, and it dismissed the criminal revision.
