Able-bodied husband cannot evade maintenance liability by citing voluntary resignation or lack of independent income.

The applicant (husband) and respondent (wife) married in 1996 and have two sons.

Following marital disputes, the husband filed for divorce in 2012, and the wife was granted interim maintenance of ₹5,000 per month under the Hindu Marriage Act.

The wife subsequently filed for maintenance under Section 125 of the CrPC (CMA No. 171 of 2013), where the Family Court granted an additional ₹3,000 as interim maintenance.

The husband, formerly employed at Essar Steel, resigned in 2015, claiming unemployment and financial liabilities.

Despite his claims, the Family Court, by an order dated 13.07.2018, presumed the husband's monthly income to be ₹35,000 based on his past earnings and retiral benefits of ₹16.30 lakhs, and awarded maintenance accordingly.

The husband challenged this order via the present revision application.

1. Whether the Family Court erred in determining the quantum of maintenance by presuming the husband's income at ₹35,000 per month despite his resignation and alleged lack of income.

2. Whether a husband can be absolved of his liability to maintain his wife on the grounds of voluntary resignation or a subsequent decrease in income.

3. Whether the High Court, in its revisional jurisdiction under Sections 397/401 of the CrPC, should interfere with the findings of fact recorded by the Family Court.

The court applied Section 125 of the CrPC, which mandates the legal and moral obligation of a husband to maintain his wife and children.

It relied on Bhuwan Mohan Singh v. Meena and Anju Garg v. Deepak Kumar Garg, establishing that an able-bodied husband must earn a livelihood, even by physical labor, to meet his maintenance obligations.

Under Shamima Farooqui v. Shahid Khan, the court noted that a reduction in income or retirement does not absolve the husband of this duty.

Rajnesh v. Neha was cited to affirm that the husband’s potential earning capacity and educational qualifications must be considered even if he claims no source of income.

Regarding revisional jurisdiction, the court followed Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander and Malkeet Singh Gill v. State of Chhatisgarh, which restrict the Revisional Court from re-appreciating evidence unless the lower court's findings are perverse or legally erroneous.

The Court observed that while the applicant resigned from his service, his financial capacity was evidenced by LIC policies with annual premiums of ₹1 lakh and retiral benefits exceeding ₹12.53 lakhs.

The Court reasoned that a husband cannot evade his "sacrosanct duty" to provide financial support by voluntarily resigning or claiming unemployment, as he remains an able-bodied man with professional experience.

It held that the Family Court’s estimation of a ₹35,000 monthly income was not an arbitrary presumption but a well-founded conclusion based on the applicant's prior employment status and standard of living.

The High Court determined that the applicant failed to demonstrate any "palpable error" or "perversity" in the Family Court's judgment; therefore, exercising revisional jurisdiction to substitute the lower court's findings of fact was unwarranted.

The Court held that the husband's legal obligation to maintain his wife is paramount and is not extinguished by resignation or a subsequent decrease in salary.

All interim relief was vacated.