High Court upholds maintenance award reflecting due application of judicial mind and balanced evidence appreciation.

The applicant/wife filed an application under Section 144 of the B.N.S.S. (Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita) seeking maintenance from the respondent/husband.

The parties were married on 10.05.2013 and have one son who resides with the respondent.

The applicant alleged she was ousted from the matrimonial home on 13.08.2023, subjected to cruelty, and that the respondent was living in adultery while earning approximately ₹44,000 per month as a government teacher.

The respondent denied these allegations, claiming the applicant lived an adulterous life, left voluntarily, and that he was burdened by personal loan repayments.

On 28.11.2025, the Family Court, Mahasamund, awarded maintenance of ₹4,000 per month from the date of the order.

The applicant preferred this revision seeking enhancement of the amount and a retrospective effective date from the date of application (24.09.2024).

1. Whether the maintenance amount of ₹4,000 per month is inadequate and warrants enhancement given the respondent's income and status.

2. Whether the Family Court erred in granting maintenance from the date of the order instead of the date of application without assigning specific reasons.

3. Whether the impugned order suffers from any illegality, infirmity, or jurisdictional error.

The Court primarily applied Section 144 of the B.N.S.S. regarding the maintenance of wives, children, and parents.

It further relied on the principles of revisional jurisdiction, which restrict the High Court from interfering with the findings of the lower court unless there is a clear illegality, material infirmity, or a jurisdictional error.

The court also emphasized the principle of "due application of judicial mind" in balancing a spouse's income against their liabilities and conduct when determining maintenance.

The High Court examined the Family Court's record and found that the lower court had afforded both parties adequate opportunity to present evidence and had framed relevant issues.

The Court observed that the Family Court had properly appreciated the oral and documentary evidence, specifically taking into account the respondent’s income as a teacher alongside his financial liabilities and the conduct of the parties.

The High Court reasoned that the amount of ₹4,000 per month was a "well-reasoned and speaking" determination that balanced the needs of the applicant with the constraints of the respondent.

It held that the order was not arbitrary or unjustified and that the applicant failed to demonstrate any patent illegality in the Family Court’s decision to award maintenance from the date of the order rather than the date of filing.

The Court affirmed the maintenance award of ₹4,000 per month and directed that a certified copy of the order be transmitted to the trial court for compliance.