Allahabad High Court Cites Manusmriti on Husband's Pious Duty to Maintain Family

KanoonHQ Legal Gazette · AI-generated brief from the source linked below. How briefs are made

Published 29 October 2026

Case: Smt. Sarita v. State of U.P.
Court: Allahabad High Court
Bench: Justice Rahul Chaturvedi
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 246
Decided: 24 May 2024
Statutes: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s.125
Source: LiveLaw

Bottom Line Up Front (BLUF)

In Smt. Sarita v. State of U.P., 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 246, decided on 2024-05-24, the Allahabad High Court, citing Manusmriti, held that a husband has a 'pious' duty to maintain his wife and children, even if he has committed 'a hundred misdeeds', while rejecting a revision petition against a maintenance order under Section 125 CrPC.

Ratio Decidendi · Legal Principle Established

A husband has a pious and legal duty to maintain his wife and minor children, irrespective of his own conduct, as enshrined in both ancient texts like Manusmriti and modern statutory provisions like Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Practice & Procedural Impact for Advocates

Advocates representing wives and children seeking maintenance can cite the 'pious duty' argument alongside statutory provisions. Litigants should be aware that a husband's personal conduct or alleged misdeeds may not absolve him of his maintenance obligations. Courts may consider traditional legal philosophies in interpreting statutory duties.

Key Legal Takeaways

1Husband's duty to maintain wife and children is 'pious' and absolute.
2Section 125 CrPC reinforces this traditional duty.
3Personal conduct of the husband does not negate maintenance obligation.

The Legal Issue In the case of Smt. Sarita v. State of U.P., the Allahabad High Court addressed a revision petition filed by a husband challenging a maintenance order issued under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The core legal issue was whether a husband could be absolved of his duty to maintain his wife and minor children, particularly when he alleged misdeeds on his part or sought to evade this responsibility.

Court's Reasoning Justice Rahul Chaturvedi, presiding over the case, rejected the husband's revision petition, affirming the maintenance order. The Court emphasized the 'pious' and absolute duty of a husband to maintain his wife and minor children. In its reasoning, the Court cited a verse from Manusmriti, stating, "Even by performing a hundred misdeeds, a husband has to maintain his wife and children." This ancient text was invoked to underscore the deeply rooted societal and legal expectation regarding a husband's responsibility. The Court held that this duty is not contingent upon the husband's personal conduct or alleged shortcomings, but is a fundamental obligation reinforced by Section 125 CrPC.

What Follows The Allahabad High Court dismissed the husband's revision petition, thereby upholding the maintenance order passed in favour of the wife and children. The husband is now legally bound to comply with the maintenance order as originally issued by the lower court under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. This decision reinforces the enforceability of maintenance orders and the broad interpretation of a husband's duty to provide for his family.