Award of Maintenance for 100% Disabled Child Held Not Excessive Despite Husband's Limited Income Claims

The applicant (husband) and Non-applicant No. 1 (wife) were married on 30.05.2009. Out of the wedlock, Non-applicant No. 2 (daughter) was born in 2010, who was subsequently diagnosed with 100% disability.

The wife alleged that the husband neglected his responsibilities and failed to provide financial assistance for the child’s significant medical expenses, despite having multiple sources of income from business and property.

The husband contested the claim, asserting that the wife resided at her parental home voluntarily for 15 years, was independently earning from a printing business, and that his own income was insufficient to meet the maintenance demand.

The Family Court, via order dated 03.03.2026, directed the husband to pay a total of ₹25,000 per month (₹5,000 to the wife and ₹20,000 to the disabled daughter).

The husband moved the High Court in revision, challenging the amount as excessive.

1. Whether the maintenance amount of ₹25,000 per month awarded by the Family Court was excessive or beyond the financial capacity of the applicant.

2. Whether the findings of the Family Court regarding the husband's income and the wife's entitlement to maintenance were legally sustainable.

The court primarily applied Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) [which corresponds to Section 125 of the CrPC], which mandates a person with sufficient means to maintain their wife and children who are unable to maintain themselves.

The court relied on the legal principle that maintenance quantum must be determined by considering the social status of the parties, the earning capacity of the husband, and the specific requirements of the dependents, particularly in cases involving children with special medical needs.

The High Court examined the Family Court’s reasoning, which balanced the husband's alleged limited income against evidence of his agricultural landholdings and business interests.

The court noted that while the husband claimed a monthly income of only ₹20,000, the Family Court had appreciated the "overall facts and circumstances," including the child’s 100% disability and the resulting medical necessity.

The High Court observed that the husband failed to prove that the wife’s alleged printing business provided sufficient independent means to disqualify her from maintenance. Furthermore, the court held that the 15-year delay in filing the application did not negate the husband's ongoing legal and moral obligation to provide for his disabled minor daughter and wife.

The court concluded that the award of ₹5,000 for the wife and ₹20,000 for the disabled child was proportionate to the social status of the parties and the special needs of the minor.

The Court answered both issues in the affirmative of the lower court's jurisdiction and dismissed the revision petition. The applicant is required to comply with the order to pay ₹25,000 per month as directed.