Case title – Rana Pratap Singh vs. Neetu Singh And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 203 [CRIMINAL REVISION No. – 1762 of 2023]
Summary
The Allahabad High Court has ruled that a husband cannot request deductions from his salary for payments towards LIC premiums, home loans, land purchase loan installments, or insurance policy premiums when determining the monthly maintenance allowance payable to the wife under section 125 CrPC. The Supreme Court’s decision in the case of Dr. Kulbhushan Kumar vs. Rajkumari in 1970 referred to this decision. The Allahabad High Court dismissed a revision plea filed by Rana Pratap Singh, challenging a family court’s order directing him to pay Rs. 15K to his wife and Rs. 5K to each of his two children under Section 125 CrPC. The court ruled that the gross salary can only be reduced by compulsory statutory deductions, such as income tax, and upheld the family court’s order directing the revisionist to pay Rs. 5K each to his two children.
About the case
Last week, the Allahabad High Court ruled that a husband is prohibited from requesting deductions from his salary for payments towards LIC premiums, home loans, land purchase loan installments, or insurance policy premiums when determining the monthly maintenance allowance payable to the wife under section 125 CrPC.
In 1970, a division of Justice Surendra Singh referred to the Supreme Court’s decision in the case of Dr. Kulbhushan Kumar vs. Rajkumari. I noticed that the gross salary of the spouse can only be reduced by compulsory statutory deductions, such as income tax, when determining the maintenance amount.
The single judge made these observations while dismissing a revision plea filed by Rana Pratap Singh (husband/revisionist), who was challenging a family court’s order directing him to pay Rs. 15K to his wife (opposite party no.1) and Rs. 5K to each of his two children (until they reach the age of majority) under Section 125 CrPC at the time.
The Husband-revisionist’s counsel argued before the HC, among other things, that the trial court neglected to consider the fact that his wife was residing away from him without sufficient cause, and that she failed to fulfill her matrimonial responsibilities despite the fact that the relevant Family Court had passed a decree for restitution of conjugal rights against her under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act.
It was also argued that the trial Court failed to consider the revisionist’s monthly income of Rs.40,000/-, which is reduced by the installment for the loan taken to purchase land and the LIC premium, resulting in a monthly income of only Rs. 28,446/-.
The revisionist also argued that his wife’s right to maintenance is invalidated by the provision of Section 125 (4) CrPC due to her illicit relations with his younger sibling.
The High Court observed that the wife had submitted a certified copy of a Lok Adalat order nullifying the ex-parte judgment and order issued by the family court under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, after considering the case’s particulars and the arguments presented. As a result, the HC determined that the family court’s order was invalid.
The Court stated that there was no material basis to believe the revisionist’s allegations that the husband’s wife was living in adultery with him and had left his home to live with his younger brother.
Furthermore, the Court acknowledged that the husband is employed as a constable in the CRPF and that his gross salary for January 2023 was Rs.65,773/-, as indicated by the salary sheet submitted by his wife.
The Court also emphasized that the gross salary can only be reduced by compulsory statutory deductions, such as income tax. Consequently, the husband’s claim that no deduction in the salary was permissible for the payment of LIC, home loan, installments towards the loan for purchasing land, or insurance premiums was incorrect.
Under these circumstances, the Court upheld the family court’s order directing the revisionist to pay Rs. 15K to his wife (opposite party no.1) and Rs. 5K each to his two children (until they reach the age of majority) under Section 125 CrPC, based on the revisionist’s monthly salary of Rs.65,773/-.
