'Not A Simple Litigant': Allahabad HC Slams Ex-Judge For Hiding Pension, Rejects Remarriage Defence In Maintenance Case

Home / News updates 'Not A Simple Litigant': Allahabad HC Slams Ex-Judge For Hiding Pension, Rejects Remarriage Defence In Maintenance Case X Allahabad High Court stresses judicial conduct while upholding wife’s maintenance order against retired judge. Allahabad High Court says a retired judge is not expected to conceal material facts or misrepresent them before court, rejects his pension, second marriage and children as grounds to reduce maintenance under Section 125 CrPC. The Allahabad High Court recently upheld an order directing a retired judicial officer to pay Rs 18,000 per month as maintenance to his wife, holding that his revised pension, subsequent arrears and the circumstances surrounding his second marriage did not provide grounds to reduce the amount. The bench of Justice Lakshmi Kant Shukla, while dismissing the retired Additional District and Sessions Judge's revision petition against the August 26, 2025 order of the Family Court, Kanpur Nagar, also made observations about the conduct expected from a former judicial officer. Court said the former judge was “not only a simple litigant of a family dispute” and observed that “a Judge is always a Judge” . It said a judge “cannot be expected” to conceal material facts or misrepresent any fact before a court. Court specifically found that the retired judicial officer had concealed from the family court the revision of his pension following implementation of the II National Judicial Pay Commission recommendations, as well as the arrears he received following the pay revision. Why was maintenance increased? Retired Additional District and Sessions Judge Naresh Kumar's wife had initially been awarded Rs 5,000 per month as maintenance in 2011. The amount was subsequently enhanced to Rs 9,000. She later sought a further enhancement, citing the increase in Kumar's income. The family court eventually enhanced the monthly maintenance to Rs 18,000 under Section 125 CrPC . Kumar challenged the order before the high court, arguing that his actual pension was much lower than the income considered by the family court. Kumar told the high court that when he retired on November 30, 2020, his basic pay was Rs 60,310 per month and his pension had initially been fixed at Rs 25,632. He argued that the family court had wrongly treated his monthly income as Rs 88,000. The high court noted that the II National Judicial Pay Commission recommendations, although effective from January 1, 2016, had not been implemented for judicial officers in Uttar Pradesh when Kumar retired. The consequential revision of judicial officers' pay was implemented before the family court passed its order, resulting in a revision of Kumar's pension. Court recorded that Kumar admitted receiving about Rs 88,000 per month as pension after the revision. It also noted that implementation of the revised pay resulted in payment of arrears. On this basis, court said the argument that Kumar's pension was only Rs 25,632 was not material to the issue before it. Why did court reject second marriage as a financial liability? Kumar had also argued that he had obtained a divorce from his wife in 2006 and thereafter remarried. He said he had two children from the second marriage and was responsible for their maintenance as well. The divorce decree, however, had been passed by a Civil Judge (Senior Division), Unnao. The high court examined Section 19 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, which provides the forum for presentation of a petition under the Act. It held that such a petition could be presented only before the District Court. Referring to the General Clauses Act, the court said “District Judge” means the judge of the principal civil court of original jurisdiction and does not include a single court of Civil Judge (Senior Division). It consequently held that the divorce decree passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division) was a decree passed by an “incompetent court” and “has no legal sanctity”. Court therefore held that Kumar's