The Allahabad High Court holds that a husband cannot claim deduction of Insurance Premium, Loan EMI from his gross salary for determining maintenance amount under section 125 Cr PC.

The Allahabad High Court has dismissed a Revision Petition filed by the husband against the order of the Family Court holding that the husband cannot claim deduction of Insurance Premium, Loan EMI etc. from his gross salary for determining maintenance amount under section 125 Cr PC. By the impugned judgment and order, the trial court allowed the criminal case instituted by the wife, opposite party no.1 under Section 125 Cr. PC and granted maintenance allowance of Rs.15,000/- per month to the wife, opposite party no. 1 and Rs. 5000/- each to her children i.e opposite party no. 2, Keerti Singh, and opposite party no. 3, Krishna Singh from the date of filing of the criminal case. The opposite party nos.2 and 3 were provided maintenance till they attain the age of majority.
 
It was submitted by learned counsel for the husband, revisionist, that the trial Court had passed the impugned order against the weight of evidence on record as well as law applicable to the facts of the case. The trial court has misread and misinterpreted the documentary as well as oral evidence on record. The trial court has not taken into consideration the fact that without any fault of the revisionist, the opposite party no.1 was residing away from him. It was also submitted that a decree for restitution of conjugal rights was passed by the concerned Family Court under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act against the opposite party no.1 still she failed to live with the revisionist and perform her matrimonial duties, therefore her rights to maintenance allowance against the revisionist is barred under Section 125 2 (4) Cr. PC It has further been submitted that while determining the amount of maintenance allowance, the trial Court has not taken into consideration the monthly income of the revisionist.
 
Per contra, learned counsel for the opposite parties submitted that the trial Court has passed the impugned order after proper appreciation of oral and documentary evidence on record and it should not be interfered with. It has also been submitted that the revisionist is a central government employee and was getting a monthly salary of Rs.83,910/- per month in the year 2020 as it is mentioned in the trial court order. Now his salary has increased from that amount. It has also been submitted that the parents of the opposite party no. 1 are bearing expenses of the opposite party nos. 1 to 3. Learned counsel for the opposite parties has relied on the judgement of Hon’ble the Apex Court in Rajnesh vs. Neha and Another, (2021) 2 SCC 324.
 
The High Court held thus:

The Apex Court has held that while deciding the criminal revision against the order passed under Section 125 Cr.P.C. or corresponding section under Domestic Violence Act, the Court shall take only consideration of the present income of the husband and wife for determining maintenance payable to the wife and children. Apart from the fees for school of opposite party Nos.2 and 3, money is also required for purchasing books, stationary, conveyance to school and other expenses of opposite party Nos.2 and 3. In this regard, the trial Court has provided Rs.15,000/- per month to the opposite party No.1 and Rs.5000/- each to the opposite party Nos.2 and 3, totalling Rs.25,000/- per month, which cannot be considered to be excessive. Thus, the trial Court has rightly and justly fixed the maintenance allowance payable to the opposite party Nos.1 to 3.

Rana Pratap Singh vs. Neetu Singh And 2 Others