Maintenance award is sustainable where Court reasonably balances husband's financial capacity against dependents' standard of living.

The applicant (husband) and non-applicant No. 1 (wife) were married on June 8, 2003, and have two daughters.

The wife alleged that she was subjected to cruelty, dowry demands, and physical assault for not bearing a male child, leading to her being forcibly driven out of the matrimonial home.

She lodged police complaints and filed for maintenance at the Family Court, Raipur.

The husband contested the claim, alleging the wife deserted him without cause and insisted he live as a "resident son-in-law".

He further claimed his income as a computer mechanic was only Rs. 3,000–4,000 per month (later cited as Rs. 9,000 post-COVID).

The Family Court partly allowed the wife’s application, awarding a total of Rs. 15,000 per month.

The husband challenged this order via the present criminal revision.

1. Whether the maintenance amount of Rs. 15,000 per month awarded by the Family Court was disproportionate to the applicant's income and financial capacity.

2. Whether the wife’s separate residence was justified, or if she deserted the applicant without sufficient cause.

The court primarily applied Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.), which mandates a person with sufficient means to maintain their wife and children who are unable to maintain themselves.

The court relied on the principle that the quantum of maintenance must be determined by balancing the husband's financial capability against the wife and children's genuine needs, taking into account the social and economic status of the parties, the standard of living, and the prevailing cost of living/price index.

The High Court observed that the Family Court reached its conclusion after a detailed evaluation of the evidence and documents on record.

Although the applicant argued that his income had reduced to Rs. 9,000 per month post-COVID and that he had to support an ailing father, the Court found that the Family Court had already considered the "balance of financial capability" and the "genuine needs" of the three non-applicants.

The High Court noted that the Family Court exercised its judicial discretion judiciously by considering the current economic climate and the social status of the parties.

The Court found no merit in the husband’s claim that the wife lived separately without cause, upholding the lower court’s finding that the award was not "shockingly high" or inadequate under the circumstances.

The Court answered the issues by affirming that the maintenance of Rs. 6,000 for the wife, Rs. 5,000 for the first daughter, and Rs. 4,000 for the second daughter was reasonable.

Consequently, the revision petition was dismissed, and the office was directed to communicate the order to the Family Court for follow-up action.