No job or regular income? Husband cannot avoid wife’s maintenance, says Allahabad HC

A husband cannot simply avoid his maintenance obligation by saying that he has no permanent job or that his business is not doing well, the Allahabad High Court has held.

In a September 30, 2026 order in Mohammad Kamil v. State of U.P. and Another, the court upheld an order directing the husband to pay ₹3,500 a month to his wife. It also upheld the payment of maintenance from the date of the wife's application rather than from the date of the order.

The ruling underlines an important point in maintenance cases: a husband's claimed salary, or lack of a regular salary, is not necessarily the only measure of his ability to pay. His capacity to earn and the financial circumstances of both parties can also matter.

What happened in the Allahabad HC case?

The husband challenged a January 25, 2023 order of the Gram Nyayalaya, Patiyali, Kasganj, which directed him to pay ₹3,500 a month to his wife under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).

The husband argued that his wife was living with her parents by choice and that he had no permanent source of income. He also claimed that he was not in a position to pay the amount and that the lower court had wrongly assessed his income. He challenged the decision to grant maintenance from the date of the application as well.

The High Court rejected the challenge.

The court noted that the wife was a legally wedded wife, had no independent income and was unable to maintain herself. The trial court had also recorded that the husband had turned her out of the matrimonial home over non-fulfilment of dowry demands.

‘I have no job’ is not automatically a defence against maintenance

One of the strongest observations in the judgment concerns a husband's claim that he cannot pay because he does not have a job or his business is not doing well.

The High Court said such claims cannot, by themselves, defeat a maintenance claim where the husband is capable of earning.

Being unemployed and being incapable of earning are not necessarily the same thing.

“A mere assertion of having no permanent employment or inadequate income does not, by itself, absolve him of his legal obligation. However, earning capacity should not automatically be treated as proof of a specific income. The assessment must remain evidence-based and case-specific,” says Apoorva Pandey, Advocate, Supreme Court of India.

What can show a husband’s actual financial capacity?

A person may not receive a monthly salary but may still have other financial resources.

Courts can look at a person's overall financial capacity rather than relying only on declared salary. Depending on the facts and evidence, this can include assets, investments, rental income, business interests and other resources, says Alay Razvi, Managing Partner, Accord Juris.

Documents that may help establish financial capacity can include:

• Income-tax returns
• Bank statements
• Salary slips, where applicable
• GST returns and business records
• Property documents
• Vehicle ownership records
• Investment statements
• Fixed-deposit details
• Shareholdings and other financial assets
• Evidence relating to lifestyle and expenditure

If a person claims to have no income, but the available evidence shows assets, business activity, investments or other resources, those facts can become relevant.

How is the maintenance amount decided?

There is no universal formula under which every wife receives a fixed percentage of the husband's income.

The Allahabad High Court referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Jasbir Kaur Sehgal v. District Judge, Dehradun, which says courts must consider factors such as the status of the parties, their respective needs and the husband's capacity to pay after considering his reasonable personal expenses, legal obligations and statutory deductions.

The objective is to provide the wife with reasonable financial support and allow her to live with dignity, taking into account the standard of living during the marriage. At the same time, the amount should not be excessive.

The assessment can therefore involve several factors, including the parties' financial circumstances, available resources, relevant liabilities, the wife's actual needs and the husband's capacity to pay, says Pandey.

Can an educated or employable wife still claim maintenance?

Yes, being educated or theoretically capable of working does not automatically mean that a wife loses her right to seek maintenance.

In this case, the High Court noted that the wife was a simple homemaker and had no independent earnings.

Pandey explains that the relevant question under the applicable maintenance provisions is whether the statutory conditions are satisfied, including whether the wife is unable to maintain herself.

Her educational qualifications or theoretical employability, by themselves, do not automatically answer that question. However, her actual income and financial resources can be relevant when the court determines whether she needs maintenance and, if so, how much.

Why did the court say ₹3,500 was not excessive?

The husband had challenged the amount as being beyond his financial ability.

The High Court disagreed.

It observed that the amount awarded was already “very meager” and reasoned that if the wife had continued living with the husband, he would have had to spend at least this much on her. The court therefore held that the amount could not be described as exorbitant.

What happens if the husband’s financial situation genuinely changes?

The ruling does not mean that a maintenance amount can never change.

If the payer's circumstances materially change, the law provides a mechanism to seek alteration of the maintenance order.

Razvi says that a husband facing a genuine change in circumstances, such as loss of employment, serious illness, disability, business failure or a substantial fall in income, can seek modification by producing credible evidence.

But a person cannot simply decide to pay less on his own.

An existing maintenance order continues to operate unless it is modified by the competent court. A pending application seeking reduction does not, by itself, erase arrears or suspend the existing obligation.

The Allahabad High Court's decision is not a rule that every unemployed husband must pay a particular amount, nor does it establish that courts can assume an arbitrary income.

Instead, it reinforces a broader principle: maintenance proceedings require courts to look at the actual circumstances of the parties and the husband's ability to support his wife, rather than accepting a bare claim of unemployment or poor business performance at face value.

The court's reasoning also reflects the purpose of maintenance law. It said Section 125 CrPC is intended to provide financial support to a woman who is compelled to leave her matrimonial home so that she is not left without the means to sustain herself. The court emphasised that eligible maintenance should allow her to live with dignity rather than force her into destitution.