Maintenance award sustainable despite parent’s pension, considering child’s financial capability and standard of living.

The non-applicant (mother) filed an application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. seeking maintenance from the applicant (son).

The mother’s husband died in 1991, following which the son received a compassionate appointment and currently earns approximately ₹80,000 per month as a P.T.I.

The son contested the application, stating the mother is financially self-sufficient as she receives a personal pension of ₹19,838, her late husband’s pension of ₹27,603, and a family pension of ₹7,775

The 1st Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Durg, partly allowed the application on 04.02.2026, directing the son to pay ₹7,000 per month

The son challenged this order through the present criminal revision, alleging the Family Court failed to appreciate evidence regarding the mother's independent income

Whether the Family Court erred in awarding maintenance of ₹7,000 per month despite evidence of the mother’s independent pensionary income

Whether the impugned order suffered from jurisdictional error or perversity warranting interference in revision

The court applied Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.), which mandates maintenance for parents unable to maintain themselves

The court relied on the principle of judicial discretion, which requires balancing the applicant's financial capability, the parties' social and economic status, the standard of living, and the prevailing cost of living and price index

The High Court observed that the Family Court’s decision was based on a detailed consideration of the documents and evidence presented by both parties

Although the son argued that the mother’s pensionary income (Ex-D/1) rendered her self-sufficient, the Court held that the Family Court had already factored in the financial status of both parties and the genuine needs of the mother

The Court reasoned that the awarded amount of ₹7,000 per month was not "shockingly on the higher side" or "inadequate" considering the son's substantial salary of ₹80,000 and the current economic standard of living

The High Court concluded that since the lower court exercised its discretion judiciously and arrived at a reasoned conclusion, there was no illegality or infirmity in the findings

The Court affirmed the direction for the applicant to pay ₹7,000 per month to the non-applicant from the date of the order

The office was directed to send a certified copy of the order to the concerned Family Court for necessary follow-up action