₹7,500 monthly maintenance for a non-earning wife and minor child was held reasonable.

The petitioner-husband challenged the judgment dated 09.01.2026 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Mandi, in a petition under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, filed by his wife and minor son for maintenance.

The parties were married on 27.11.2020, and a son was born from the marriage.

The wife alleged that, following pregnancy-related complications, childbirth and subsequent hospitalisation between January and March 2022, she was not taken back by the petitioner’s family and was compelled to reside with her father along with the minor child.

The Family Court found that the wife had no independent source of income and that the husband earned approximately ₹22,300 per month as a manager in a finance company, a fact supported by the testimony of an employee of that company.

It awarded maintenance of ₹4,000 per month to the wife and ₹3,500 per month to the minor son, payable from the date of filing of the petition, along with ₹8,000 as litigation expenses.

The husband challenged the award as excessive, relying, inter alia, on his obligation to support his widowed mother.

Whether the Family Court’s award of monthly maintenance to the wife and minor son under Section 125 CrPC was perverse, unsupported by the evidence, or otherwise liable to be interfered with in revision?

Whether total maintenance of ₹7,500 per month was excessive in view of the husband’s monthly income of approximately ₹22,000–₹22,300 and his alleged obligation to support his widowed mother?

The Court applied Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which enables a wife unable to maintain herself and a minor child unable to maintain himself to claim monthly maintenance from a person having sufficient means who neglects or refuses to maintain them.

The Court also applied the principle that, in revisional jurisdiction, interference is warranted where the subordinate court’s findings are perverse, illegal, or unsupported by the record; a mere disagreement with the quantum of maintenance is insufficient.

In assessing maintenance, the Court considered the wife’s lack of independent income, the needs of the minor child, and the husband’s established earning capacity and monthly income.

The High Court found no perversity or evidentiary infirmity in the Family Court’s conclusions.

The wife was not earning and was dependent on her parents, while the husband’s income was established at approximately ₹22,300 per month through documentary and testimonial material, including the evidence of an employee of his finance company.

Against this income, the aggregate award of ₹7,500 per month for the wife and a young child was held not to be excessive, particularly as the child was approximately four years old and had recently commenced school, creating additional expenditure.

The husband’s contention that he also had to support his widowed mother did not justify interference with the award, especially when the maintenance amount did not provide the wife and child with a luxurious standard of living.

The Court therefore declined to reappreciate the quantum in the absence of perversity or legal infirmity.

Amounts already paid were directed to be adjusted; arrears were to be deposited within three months, and future monthly maintenance was to be paid by the tenth day of each succeeding month.

The award of ₹8,000 as litigation expenses was also left undisturbed.

Pending applications, if any, were disposed of.