Husband cannot shirk the legal duty to maintain wife and children commensurate with his actual income and standard of living.

The applicant (husband) and respondent No. 2 (wife) married in 1999 and have four children.

In 2008, the wife was deserted and subsequently filed for maintenance under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C.

The Magistrate initially awarded a total maintenance of Rs. 2,600 per month (Rs. 600 for the wife and Rs. 500 for each of the four children).

In 2017, the wife filed for enhancement under Section 127 of the Cr.P.C., and the Family Court at Nadiad increased the total maintenance to Rs. 6,000 per month.

The husband, a driver with the Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation (GSRTC), challenged this enhancement, claiming his income was only Rs. 8,000 per month.

However, RTI evidence produced by the wife indicated his actual salary was approximately Rs. 72,000 per month, supplemented by agricultural income from 10 acres of land.

1. Whether the Family Court committed a patent error in enhancing the maintenance amount from Rs. 2,600 to Rs. 6,000 under Section 127 of the Cr.P.C.

2. Whether the husband can evade the liability of maintenance by suppressing his actual income in proceedings.

The court primarily applied Section 127 of the Cr.P.C. regarding the alteration/enhancement of maintenance allowances due to changes in circumstances.

It relied on Sunita Kachwaha v. Anil Kachwaha (2014) 16 SCC 715, establishing that a wife’s potential to earn or her educational qualifications are not grounds to deny maintenance if she is unable to maintain herself.

The court further applied Bhuwan Mohan Singh v. Meena (2015) 6 SCC 353, which dictates that a husband has a legal and ethical duty to provide his family with the same standard of living he enjoys.

Additionally, the court cited Usha Rani v. Moodudula Srinivas (2025) and Mohd. Abdul Samad v. State of Telangana (2024) regarding the necessity of financial empowerment for homemakers.

The High Court found that the Family Court properly appreciated the evidence, noting that the husband’s salary was significantly higher than claimed.

While the husband alleged an income of Rs. 8,000, RTI disclosures revealed a salary near Rs. 72,000.

The Court observed that Rs. 6,000 per month to maintain five persons (wife and four children) amounts to only Rs. 1,200 per person per month (approx. Rs. 40 per day), which is "extremely meagre" and insufficient for basic necessities like food and milk.

The Court condemned the husband's tendency to suppress income and held that he cannot shirk his social and lawful duty to maintain his legally wedded wife and children.

It further reasoned that the increase in educational expenses and the cost of living over the years since the original 2009 order justified the enhancement.

It held that the husband failed to demonstrate any patent error or miscarriage of justice in the lower court's findings.

The Court affirmed that maintenance is a social justice measure intended to prevent vagrancy and that the awarded amount was barely sufficient for survival given the husband's true financial capacity.

Rule was discharged.