Courts may assess maintenance by earning capacity when a husband fails to prove income.

The petitioner-wife challenged the Family Court’s order partly allowing her application under Section 125 CrPC and awarding maintenance of ₹4,000 per month from the date of application.

The parties married on 22 January 2019; the wife alleged cruelty and dowry demands, and stated that she had lived separately at her parental home since February 2022 without financial support.

She sought ₹25,000 per month, alleging that the husband had income from employment, agricultural land and a tyre business. The husband denied the allegations, claimed unemployment, and asserted that the wife could maintain herself.

The Family Court found that the wife was entitled to maintenance and assessed the husband’s income at approximately ₹20,000–₹25,000 per month, but awarded ₹4,000 per month.

The wife’s revision challenged the quantum as inadequate and the income assessment as unsupported by the evidence.

1. Whether the maintenance of ₹4,000 per month awarded by the Family Court was just, fair and adequate, or required enhancement.

2. Whether the Family Court’s assessment of the husband’s income and its resulting maintenance award warranted interference in revision.

Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 provides the basis for the revision; the maintenance claim arose under Section 125 CrPC, corresponding to Section 144 BNSS.

The purpose of Section 125 is to prevent destitution and provide a neglected wife with reasonable support enabling her to live with dignity and, so far as practicable, in a manner comparable to the matrimonial household.

The Court relied on Bhuwan Mohan Singh v. Meena, AIR 2014 SC 2875, and Shailja v. Khobbanna, (2018) 12 SCC 199, for the principles governing maintenance.

It also relied on Rajnesh v. Neha, (2021) 2 SCC 324, to support assessing a spouse’s income from surrounding circumstances and drawing an adverse inference where relevant income material is not produced.

Kalyan Dey Chowdhury v. Rita Dey Chowdhury Nee Nandy, AIR 2017 SC 2383, was cited for the indicative 25% income benchmark applied by the Family Court.

The wife’s entitlement to maintenance and the finding that she had sufficient cause to live separately were not challenged and had attained finality.

Although the wife did not substantiate her claimed income figures, the husband—a postgraduate who admitted prior employment and the payment of rent and household expenses—produced no income-tax returns, salary slips or other reliable evidence to establish his actual income or claimed unemployment.

The Court therefore considered his qualifications, earning capacity and surrounding circumstances in assessing income.

Further, the Family Court’s own income estimate of ₹20,000–₹25,000 per month yielded a 25% benchmark of approximately ₹5,000–₹6,250, making its ₹4,000 award internally inconsistent with that assessment.

The Court also considered the inadequacy of ₹4,000 to meet basic needs and the husband’s non-compliance with the restitution-of-conjugal-rights decree.

The Court modified the Family Court’s order by increasing maintenance from ₹4,000 to ₹12,000 per month, payable from the date of the original application, 3 June 2024.

The enhanced monthly amount is payable by the 10th of each English calendar month; arrears at the enhanced rate up to the date of the order are payable in three equal monthly instalments commencing the following month.

The remaining directions in the Family Court’s order were left undisturbed, and no costs were ordered.