Facts
The Applicant (husband), a Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), married Respondent No. 2 (wife), currently a Judicial Officer, on December 3, 2017
Source reference: p. 2The relationship deteriorated, leading the Applicant to file for divorce in 2025
Source reference: p. 4Respondent No. 2 filed an application for maintenance under Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) on behalf of herself and the minor child.
Source reference: p. 1-2The Family Court, Raipur, vide order dated March 9, 2026, denied maintenance to the wife (due to her independent income) but fixed a total maintenance of ₹30,000 per month for the child.
Source reference: p. 1-2The court directed them to share the burden equally, ordering the Applicant to pay ₹15,000 per month
Source reference: p. 2The Applicant challenged this as excessive, citing his voluntary payment of LIC premiums for the child
Source reference: p. 6Issues
1. Whether the quantum of maintenance (₹15,000/- per month) fixed for the minor child was excessive or disproportionate given the financial status and conduct of the parties.
Source reference: p. 6 / para. 52. Whether the Family Court committed a legal error or material irregularity in its assessment of the financial liabilities of both parents.
Source reference: p. 8 / para. 7Law Applied
The court applied Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), which corresponds to Section 125 of the CrPC, governing the maintenance of children
Source reference: p. 1, 5Both parents, if gainfully employed, are legally and morally obligated to contribute proportionately to the upbringing, education, and medical needs of their minor child based on their respective financial capacities
Source reference: p. 8Maintenance for a child is determined by the standard of living of the parents and the specific needs of the child, rather than being treated as a punitive measure
Source reference: p. 8Reasoning
The High Court scrutinized the Family Court’s reasoning, which balanced the high professional status of both parents against the child's requirements.
Source reference: no citationThe Court found that the Family Court had already accounted for the Respondent No. 2's high income by rejecting her personal maintenance claim and by splitting the child's maintenance cost equally (50:50) between the parents
Source reference: p. 6, 8The Court determined that ₹15,000 per month from a Sub-Divisional Officer for his child is not "excessive" when considering current costs of education and medical care
Source reference: p. 8The Court found no evidence of "mechanical" application of law, noting that the Family Court properly examined the income disclosures and the status of the parties
Source reference: p. 8-9Holding
The High Court dismissed the revision petition, holding that there was no illegality, infirmity, or jurisdictional error in the impugned order
The Court affirmed that the maintenance of ₹15,000 per month (representing half of the determined ₹30,000) was reasonable and just
Source reference: p. 1, 8The Applicant was directed to continue the payment from the date of the original application, April 30, 2025
Source reference: p. 2Original Court PDF
PANKAJ DAHIREvsVEDANT KUMAR DAHIRE (MINOR)
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in