Able-bodied husband must maintain wife and children regardless of the wife’s potential earning capacity.

The applicant (husband) and respondent no. 1 (wife) married on April 30, 2005, according to Muslim rites.

Following allegations of cruelty, harassment, and desertion, the wife filed for maintenance under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. for herself and their minor son (respondent no. 2).

The wife alleged the husband earned Rs. 20,000–60,000 per month as a truck owner, while the husband contended he was a casual driver earning minimal income, the vehicle belonged to his father, and he supported five other dependents.

On August 18, 2011, the Principal Judge, Family Court, Junagadh, directed the applicant to pay a total monthly maintenance of Rs. 7,500.

The husband preferred this revision application challenging the order as exorbitant and based on an incorrect assessment of income.

1. Whether the Family Court erred in assessing the husband’s income and awarding maintenance of Rs. 7,500 per month.

2. Whether the High Court, in its revisional jurisdiction, should interfere with the findings of fact recorded by the lower court.

Section 125 of the Cr.P.C., characterizing it as beneficial legislation intended to provide maintenance to wives and children unable to support themselves.

It relied on Shailja v. Khobbanna and Sunita Kachwaha v. Anil Kachwaha to establish that a wife’s mere capability to earn is not a ground to deny maintenance.

Under Bhuwan Mohan Singh v. Meena and Anju Garg v. Deepak Kumar Garg, the court affirmed the "sacrosanct duty" of an able-bodied husband to support his family, even through physical labor.

The court applied the principles of revisional jurisdiction under Sections 397 and 401 of the Cr.P.C., citing Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander, which restricts the High Court from re-appreciating evidence unless the lower court’s findings are perverse or involve a patent defect of law.

The court observed that the marital relationship and the paternity of the minor son were undisputed.

It rejected the husband's argument regarding his limited income, noting that as an able-bodied man, he cannot escape the legal and ethical obligation to maintain his wife and child.

The court found that the husband failed to produce evidence proving the wife was gainfully employed or capable of maintaining her prior standard of living.

While the husband contested the ownership of the vehicle (Esher truck), the court held that the Family Court’s assessment of a Rs. 20,000 monthly income was reasonable given the facts and circumstances.

Regarding the scope of revision, the court determined that the trial judge provided well-founded reasons based on evidence and that there was no "palpable error" or arbitrary exercise of discretion that would warrant interference.

The court held that the husband is bound by law to provide financial support and cannot avoid this obligation on the grounds of supporting other relatives or claiming lack of permanent employment.

All interim reliefs were vacated, and the rule was discharged.