Maintenance Award Upheld Where Quantum is Reasonable and Earning Capacity of Non-Applicant is Established

The applicant (husband) and respondent no. 1 (wife) were married on May 19, 2004, and have three children (respondent nos. 2-4).

The respondents alleged that the applicant subjected the wife to physical and mental cruelty, maintained an illicit relationship, and eventually deserted them in February 2025 without providing financial support.

The respondents claimed the applicant earns approximately Rs. 40,000 per month from his business, "Jaipur Seat Cover," and owns property, while the wife has no independent income.

The applicant contested the maintenance, alleging the wife harassed him, denied his ownership of several properties, and argued that respondent no. 2 has attained majority.

On March 17, 2026, the Family Court, Dhamtari, in Misc. Criminal Case No. 331/2025, directed the applicant to pay maintenance of Rs. 3,200 per month (Rs. 800 per respondent).

1. Whether the Family Court committed a jurisdictional error or illegality in awarding maintenance to the respondents under Section 144 of the B.N.S.S., 2023.

2. Whether the award of maintenance was excessive considering the applicant's financial stability and the respondents' alleged alternative income sources.

The Court applied Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (B.N.S.S.), 2023 (formerly Section 125 of the CrPC), which mandates that any person having sufficient means who neglects or refuses to maintain his wife, children (legitimate or illegitimate), or parents is liable to pay a monthly allowance for their maintenance.

The court emphasized the principle that maintenance amounts must be assessed based on the earning capacity of the husband and the basic sustenance needs of the dependents.

The High Court examined the Family Court’s findings regarding the marital relationship and the birth of the three children, which were undisputed.

It addressed the applicant’s contention that respondent no. 2 is a major and the wife has rental income; however, the Court found that the respondents remained dependent on the wife for sustenance following the applicant’s desertion and neglect.

Regarding the applicant’s financial capacity, the Court noted his engagement in business and determined that his claim of income instability due to potential shop demolition did not absolve him of his duty to provide support.

The Court reasoned that the Family Court had correctly balanced the evidence of the applicant's business income against the respondents' lack of independent means.

The Court found the maintenance amount of Rs. 3,200 per month (split equally at Rs. 800 per person) to be "modest and reasonable" and not excessive by any standard.

Consequently, the High Court dismissed the criminal revision for being devoid of merit and affirmed the order dated March 17, 2026.