Himachal Pradesh High Court Upholds ₹11,000 Monthly Maintenance For Wife And Son, Citing Land The Husband Gifted To His Mother

The respondents—a wife and minor child—sought maintenance of ₹10,000 per month each under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Family Court, Hamirpur, noting amounts of ₹2,000 and ₹1,000 awarded to them in proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, directed the petitioner to pay ₹7,500 per month to the wife and ₹3,500 per month to the child

The petitioner challenged the order, arguing that the Family Court had not properly considered either the Domestic Violence Act awards or his financial capacity

In the revision, the respondents also filed a sale deed and a subsequent gift deed showing that the petitioner had purchased land and later gifted it to his mother

Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides the basis for the maintenance claim in this case.

The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, formed the basis of separate maintenance awards that were relevant to the assessment of the amounts payable under Section 125. The Court cited no precedent or separate legal test; it considered whether the Family Court had taken the existing awards and the petitioner’s financial circumstances into account when determining maintenance

The Court rejected the contention that the Domestic Violence Act awards had been overlooked because paragraph 24 of the Family Court’s order expressly considered the monthly amounts awarded in those proceedings before fixing maintenance under Section 125

It also found that the Family Court had considered the petitioner’s qualifications and his former ownership of a clinical laboratory, registered in his name from 2011 to 2015

The additional sale and gift deeds further supported the respondents’ contention that the petitioner had financial capacity: he had purchased land for ₹6,84,000 and gifted it to his mother, with the land’s average value recorded as ₹13,82,500 in the gift deed. The Court found no basis to disturb the Family Court’s assessment

Finding no merit in the revision and observing that the maintenance amounts were not excessive, it dismissed the petition and any pending applications