A wife’s education or earning capacity alone cannot defeat maintenance absent proof of sufficient independent income.

The revisionist-husband married respondent no. 1 on 14 November 2021 according to Hindu rites and ceremonies. A male child, respondent no. 2, was born from the marriage.

Following matrimonial disputes, the wife began residing separately with the minor child and instituted proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. seeking maintenance. The Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Udham Singh Nagar, allowed the application in Misc. Case No. 113 of 2025 by order dated 11 March 2026 and directed the revisionist to pay ₹8,000 per month each to the wife and minor son, totalling ₹16,000 per month.

The husband challenged the order, alleging that the wife was a qualified and employed teacher with an independent income and that the Family Court had awarded excessive maintenance without properly appreciating the evidence.

The respondents contended that the husband was employed as a Manager with HDFC Bank and earned approximately ₹75,000 per month, and that the wife’s alleged employment and income had not been established by reliable evidence.

Whether the Family Court was justified in awarding maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. to the legally wedded wife and minor son at the rate of ₹8,000 per month each?

Whether the wife’s educational qualifications and alleged employment as a teacher constituted sufficient independent income disentitling her from maintenance?

Whether the maintenance awarded was excessive, arbitrary, or otherwise liable to be interfered with in revisional jurisdiction?

The Court applied Section 125 Cr.P.C., whose object is to prevent vagrancy and destitution by providing a speedy remedy to a wife and minor children unable to maintain themselves.

It held that a legally wedded wife is entitled to maintenance having regard to the husband’s income, financial capacity, status, and standard of living.

Relying on Sunita Kachwaha v. Anil Kachwaha, (2014) 16 SCC 715, the Court reiterated that a wife cannot be denied maintenance merely because she is educated or possesses earning capacity; sufficient independent income enabling her to maintain herself must be established.

Revisional interference is warranted only where the subordinate court’s order suffers from illegality, perversity, or jurisdictional error.

The Court found that the marital relationship and the paternity of the minor son were undisputed, and that the husband had regular employment as an HDFC Bank Manager with an income of approximately ₹75,000 per month.

Although the husband alleged that the wife worked as a teacher and possessed an independent income, he produced no cogent or reliable evidence showing that she earned sufficiently to maintain herself and the child.

Applying Sunita Kachwaha, the Court held that the wife’s postgraduate qualification, diploma, or alleged earning capacity, without proof of sufficient actual income, did not defeat her maintenance claim.

Considering the husband’s financial capacity, the needs of the wife and minor child, and their reasonable entitlement to a standard of living consistent with the husband’s status, the award of ₹8,000 per month to each respondent was held neither excessive nor unreasonable.

No illegality, perversity, or jurisdictional error was found in the Family Court’s order.

It upheld the Family Court’s order dated 11 March 2026 directing the husband to pay ₹8,000 per month each to the wife and minor son, totalling ₹16,000 per month.

The criminal revision was accordingly disposed of without interference, and any pending applications were also disposed of.