Maintenance award exceeding 25% of husband’s net income without specific income findings is unsustainable and requires reconsideration.

The petitioner (husband) challenged an order dated 14/07/2025 passed by the Family Court, Sehore, in an application under Section 127 of the Cr.P.C.

Originally, the respondents (wife and minor son) were awarded a total monthly maintenance of ₹3,000/- under Section 125 Cr.P.C. on 26/12/2022.

Upon the respondents' application for enhancement, the Family Court increased the amount to ₹8,000/- per month (₹5,000/- for the wife and ₹3,000/- for the son).

The Family Court reached this figure by presuming the petitioner’s income based on the rates for "Skilled" and "Highly Skilled" labor (approx. ₹14,844/- to ₹16,469/-) without recording a specific finding on the husband's actual actual income.

1. Whether the Family Court committed an illegality by enhancing maintenance without recording a specific finding regarding the actual income of the husband.

2. Whether the enhanced award of ₹8,000/- per month is sustainable in light of the principles laid down by the Supreme Court regarding the proportion of husband’s income to be awarded as maintenance.

Section 127 of the Cr.P.C. regarding the alteration of maintenance allowance.

The precedent set by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kalyan Dey Chowdhury v. Rita Dey Chowdhury Nee Nandy (2017) 14 SCC 200, which followed Kulbhushan Kumar v. Raj Kumari (1970) 3 SCC 129, establishing that an award of 25% of the husband’s net salary is generally considered "just and proper" for maintenance.

The High Court observed that the Family Court failed to record any specific finding regarding the petitioner’s actual monthly income.

Instead, the lower court relied on a presumption of income based on labor classifications.

The High Court reasoned that in the absence of a factual determination of the husband's actual capacity to pay and his net income, the order enhancing the maintenance to ₹8,000/- could not be sustained under the Kalyan Dey Chowdhury benchmark (25% rule).

Because the "why" behind the specific calculation was missing and inconsistent with established legal principles, the High Court determined that a fresh adjudication was necessary.

The court held that the revision was partly allowed and directed the parties to appear before the Family Court on 26/08/2026.

As an interim measure during the pendency of the remanded proceedings, the petitioner was ordered to pay a consolidated sum of ₹6,000/- per month to the respondents effective from 01/07/2026.