Now Reading: Allahabad HC cites Manusmriti, says husband’s maintenance duty pious
-
01
Allahabad HC cites Manusmriti, says husband’s maintenance duty pious
The Story in Brief
The Allahabad High Court has cited Chapter XI, Verse 10 of the Manusmriti to hold that a husband has a ‘pious obligation’ to maintain his wife, minor children and elderly parents if they cannot support themselves. Justice Praveen Kumar Giri made the observation on October 22 while hearing a criminal revision filed by Pinki Verma, who sought higher maintenance from a Kanpur Nagar family court.
The court also relied on the Supreme Court’s Anju Garg judgment, which described the husband’s duty as ‘sacrosanct’. It said a wife’s right to maintenance is a social welfare measure to prevent vagrancy, and the husband’s liability remains absolute once the marriage is legally recognised, irrespective of historical dogmas. The husband’s counsel agreed to a 25 per cent salary deduction. The court directed Indian Bank’s higher authority to deduct 25 per cent of the husband’s gross salary, excluding income-tax, and credit it to the wife’s verified bank account.
Update, 30 October 2026: Times of India (30 October) now also reports the story, confirming the same October 22 order, the verse from Chapter XI, Verse 10 of the Manusmriti, the reliance on the Supreme Court’s Anju Garg judgment, and the direction to Indian Bank to deduct 25 per cent of the husband’s gross salary. No new facts are added.
Indian Opinion Analysis
All three outlets report the same facts from the Allahabad High Court order, with identical quotes from Justice Giri and the same December 22 reference. The coverage is uniform straight reporting. The significance lies in the court citing the Manusmriti alongside modern Supreme Court precedent, blending scriptural and constitutional reasoning to reaffirm spousal maintenance an absolute duty. The order’s practical mechanism, direct salary deduction via bank authority, is the concrete enforcement step. No source questions or frames the religious citation as unusual, leaving its legal weight unchallenged. All three name Pinki Verma as the petitioner and Indian Bank as the employer.
Coverage: 3 sources, 3 neutral
Sources (3): indiatoday.in (neutral report), hindustantimes.com (neutral report), timesofindia.indiatimes.com (neutral report)
This brief was synthesised by AI from the 3 sources linked above, so one read covers every framing they carry. Methodology and corrections.
