Maintenance awarded upon judicial assessment of financial capacity and dependent needs warrants no revisional interference.

The applicant (husband) and non-applicant No. 1 (wife) solemnized their marriage on 27.04.2018 and have two minor children

The wife filed an application for maintenance under Section 144 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), alleging dowry harassment and the husband's involvement in illicit relationships, which led to her residing at her parental home

She claimed the husband earns approximately ₹75,000 per month as a Railway Department employee

The husband contested the claim, asserting the wife left voluntarily, earns ₹20,000 per month from stitching, and that his own monthly income of ₹40,569 is largely consumed by loan liabilities, leaving him with only ₹7,000

On 03.02.2026, the Family Court, Balodabazar-Bhatapara, ordered the husband to pay ₹15,000 per month (₹5,000 each for the wife and two children)

The husband moved the High Court in revision to set aside or reduce this amount

1. Whether the maintenance awarded by the Family Court was excessive, arbitrary, or failed to consider the husband's financial liabilities and the wife's independent earning capacity

2. Whether there was any jurisdictional error or illegality in the impugned order warranting interference under revisionary jurisdiction

The Court primarily applied Section 144 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) regarding the grant of maintenance

The court relied on the principle that maintenance must be determined by balancing the financial capability of the respondent against the genuine needs of the claimants, while considering the social status, standard of living, prevailing cost of living, and the current price index

The High Court observed that the Family Court had conducted a detailed evaluation of the evidence and documents on record before awarding ₹5,000 per month to each claimant

The Court noted that the Family Court properly balanced the husband's income and the non-applicants' needs, including the educational expenses of the two minor children

It rejected the husband's plea that his loan liabilities and the wife's alleged stitching income rendered the award excessive, finding that the amount was neither "shockingly on the higher side" nor inadequate given the socio-economic circumstances

The Court concluded that the Family Court had exercised its judicial discretion judiciously, and the husband failed to demonstrate any illegality or jurisdictional error in the lower court's findings

It affirmed the Family Court's order directing the applicant to pay a total maintenance of ₹15,000 per month to the wife and two minor children

The Court directed the office to communicate this order to the concerned Family Court for follow-up action