Facts
The applicant (wife) and respondent No. 1 (husband) were married in 1996.
Source reference: p. 1The applicant alleged physical and mental harassment over dowry and childlessness after the husband joined the Gujarat Police Force.
Source reference: p. 2She further alleged the respondent entered an extra-marital relationship in 2015 and deserted the matrimonial home in January 2016.
Source reference: p. 2The respondent is a Police Constable earning approximately Rs. 35,000 per month.
Source reference: p. 2The Family Court No. 2, Ahmedabad, in Criminal Misc. Application No. 817 of 2016, awarded maintenance of Rs. 5,000 per month on 09.05.2019.
Source reference: p. 1-2The applicant filed the present revision seeking enhancement, contending the amount is inadequate given the respondent's income and the rising cost of living.
Source reference: p. 2-3Issues
1. Whether the maintenance of Rs. 5,000 per month awarded by the Family Court was just and adequate considering the husband's monthly income and socio-economic factors.
Source reference: p. 4-52. Whether the applicant-wife is entitled to an enhancement of the maintenance amount based on the respondent’s status as a police constable and the principles of Section 125 of the Cr.P.C.
Source reference: p. 5Law Applied
The Court applied Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. (and related sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C. for revisional jurisdiction), which aims to prevent destitution and ensure a dignified standard of living.
Source reference: p. 1-3It relied on Rajnesh v. Neha & Ors. (2021) 2 SCC 324, establishing that maintenance must account for the husband’s standard of living and inflation.
Source reference: p. 5It cited Bhuwan Mohan Singh v. Meena & Ors. (2015) 6 SCC 353 and Anju Garg v. Deepak Kumar Garg 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1314, affirming that an able-bodied husband has a sacrosanct duty to provide financial support and cannot evade this moral obligation.
Source reference: p. 5It further referenced Miteshbhai Dinkarbhai Makvana v. State of Gujarat 2025(0) AIJEL-HC 250224 regarding the husband's liability.
Source reference: p. 5Reasoning
The High Court observed that the marriage, the entitlement of the wife to maintenance, and the husband’s monthly income of Rs. 35,000 were not in dispute.
Source reference: p. 4The Court found that while the Family Court correctly assessed the husband's capacity to pay, it erred in awarding a nominal sum of Rs. 5,000.
Source reference: p. 5Applying the principle from Rajnesh v. Neha, the Court emphasized that maintenance should facilitate a lifestyle commensurate with the husband’s status and account for spiraling inflation.
Source reference: p. 5-6Given the respondent's stable employment as a Police Constable and the lack of independent income for the wife, the Court determined the original award was "grossly inadequate" and failed to meet the objectives of Section 125 Cr.P.C.
Source reference: p. 3, 5Holding
The Court partly allowed the Revision Application, holding that the duty to maintain the wife stands on a "higher pedestal".
It modified the Family Court's order, enhancing the maintenance from Rs. 5,000 to Rs. 8,000 per month, effective from the date of the application (01.04.2016). The judgment and order dated 09.05.2019 were modified accordingly, and the Rule was made absolute.
Source reference: p. 6Original Court PDF
DAMYANTIBEN D/O KANTIBHAI MAHERIYA AND W/O NAYANKUMAR JETHALAL JADAVvsNAYANKUMAR JETHALAL JADAV
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in