The Allahabad High Court has cited a verse from the Manusmriti while emphasising that a husband has a “pious obligation” to maintain his wife, minor children and aged parents if they are unable to support themselves financially.
A bench of Justice Praveen Kumar Giri made the observation while hearing a criminal revision petition filed by Pinki Verma, who sought an enhancement of the maintenance awarded to her and her minor daughter by a family court in Kanpur Nagar.
In its October 22 order, the court referred to Chapter XI, Verse 10 of the Manusmriti, which states that aged parents, a virtuous wife and an infant child must be supported, even through difficult circumstances.
The court observed that a husband’s responsibility to maintain his family was not limited to a legal duty but also constituted a “pious obligation”.
The High Court also relied on the Supreme Court’s 2022 judgment in Anju Garg and Another vs. Deepak Kumar Garg. The apex court had held that a husband has a “sacrosanct” duty to provide financial support to his wife and minor children through legitimate means.
It had further observed that an able-bodied husband could not avoid this responsibility on the grounds of unemployment and may be required to earn even through physical labour, except on legally permissible grounds.
The High Court said maintenance proceedings under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were intended to prevent vagrancy and destitution by ensuring that a deserted wife had access to food, clothing and shelter.
It added that once a marriage was legally recognised and the wife established that she could not maintain herself, the husband’s obligation to provide financial support remained absolute, irrespective of historical dogmas.
Court Directs Indian Bank to Deduct 25% of Husband’s Salary
Verma had challenged the family court’s order granting maintenance of Rs 19,000 per month to her and her minor daughter. She sought an increase to Rs 40,000 per month.
Her counsel argued that deductions towards voluntary financial commitments, including loan repayments, should not reduce the husband’s primary responsibility to maintain his wife and child.
The wife’s counsel also cited the Supreme Court’s 2026 judgment in Deepa Joshi vs. Gaurav Joshi, which observed that loan repayments, particularly those linked to the creation or acquisition of assets, could not be treated as essential or unavoidable expenditure.
The husband, who works as a window operator at Indian Bank in Unnao district, told the court that he was willing to have 25 per cent of his salary deducted towards maintenance for his wife and daughter.
Modifying the family court’s order, the High Court directed the competent higher authority at Indian Bank to deduct 25 per cent of his gross salary, after excluding income tax deductions, and transfer the amount to Verma’s verified bank account.
The criminal revision petition was disposed of accordingly.
