Allahabad High Court slams Family Court for unfairness towards judge's wife in maintenance case

The Allahabad High Court recently expressed disappointment with a Principal Family Court Judge for not being fair and impartial towards the wife of a judicial officer (husband) in a maintenance case..Justice Vinod Diwakar said the Family Court judge failed to uphold the law and follow the directions issued by constitutional courts regarding the award of maintenance to wife in a string of judgments.In particular, the Court expressed surprise over the Family Court's finding that actual salary of the judicial officer (husband) could not be accurately assessed."It is surprising that the learned Family Judge was unaware of the salary structure for High Judicial Service Officers in Uttar Pradesh and, for the reasons best known to him, erroneously assumed the respondent-husband’s salary to be equivalent to the salary of an entry level judicial officer in the cadre of district judge to ascertain his actual income... Shockingly, the Presiding Judge, Family Court, Sonbhadra, remains unaware of the respondent-husband’s basic pay and whether he holds a selection-grade or entry-grade position.".The Court further said the Family Court judge must introspect on his actions. "Without making any comments on the learned Judge’s wisdom and impartiality, as he is not present before this court, I leave it for him to self-introspect and realize.".The High Court was dealing with a revision plea moved by a judicial officer's wife for enhancement of the maintenance amount awarded to her by the Principal Judge of the Family Court at Sonbhadra. The woman and the judicial officer got married on May 4, 2002, according to Muslim rites. They had four children who were living with the husband since birth.At the time of their marriage, husband was serving as a Civil Judge (Junior Division) at the District Court in Sonbhadra and currently holds the position of a Special Judge in Etah. He has been a judge since 2001.The woman alleged harassment and cruelty over dowry demand. On November 18, 2013, she was allegedly thrown out of her matrimonial home. She later received a talaknama (divorce) from her husband..In 2023, the Family Court granted her a maintenance amount of ₹20,000. However, the husband allegedly failed to comply with the order. Seeking enhancement in the maintenance awarded to her, the judicial officer's wife moved the High Court in 2024 and argued that the Family Court failed to consider the actual income and status of her husband..Justice Diwaker observed that the husband’s conduct and approach were deeply concerning. He had chosen to prolong the case through various legal maneuvers, the Court found.It further observed that he is not an ordinary individual without means or resources but an educated legal professional with extensive experience in dispensing justice."The role of a judge is critical in maintaining public trust in the judiciary and fostering a culture where rights are upheld, laws are respected, and matrimonial disputes are resolved amicably," the Court added..The Court further said the husband must remain mindful of his status.Judges are not mere adjudicators of law - they embody the legal system’s credibility, are held to the highest standards of accountability and their professional integrity must, without fail, be reflected in their personal conduct, it stressed."It is true that judges, like all individuals, are entitled to the rights guaranteed to every citizen, but they must also be mindful of the elevated status and respect afforded to them, and such status comes with a greater responsibility to discharge personal, social, and judicial duties in a manner that upholds the rule of law."Unfortunately, the husband failed to meet these expectations, thereby undermining the principles of justice and the values he was entrusted to uphold, it added..The Court thus allowed the revision petition with a direction to the husband to clear the arrears and pay litigation costs of ₹50,000 to the wife."The respondent-husband shall pay Rs.20,000/- per month to the revisionist-wife from the date of filing of the first maintenance application, i.e., Case No. 21 of 2014, until 16.8.2019, and thereafter Rs.30,000/- per month from 17.8.2019 onwards, i.e. from the date when the Case No. 387/19 was filed," the Court directed. .Advocates Mujeeb Khan and Naveen Kumar appeared for the wife.Advocate MA Siddiqui appeared for the husband/ judicial officer.