Maintenance awards based on judicious assessment of socioeconomic status and living costs warrant no revisional interference.

The Applicant (husband) and Non-applicant No. 1 (wife) were married in 2009 and have one minor son, Non-applicant No. 2

The wife initiated proceedings under Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (B.N.S.S.), alleging that she was subjected to dowry harassment and physical assault, which forced her to reside at her parental home

She claimed the husband earned between Rs. 12,000 and Rs. 15,000 monthly from private work and agricultural income, whereas she had no independent means of survival

The husband contested the claim, asserting that the wife deserted the matrimonial home voluntarily and without sufficient cause

On 24.01.2026, the Principal Judge, Family Court, Durg, directed the husband to pay maintenance of Rs. 1,500 each to the wife and son (totaling Rs. 3,000 per month)

The husband challenged this order via criminal revision, citing financial inability and the wife's alleged unjustified separation

1. Whether the maintenance order of Rs. 3,000 per month was arbitrary, excessive, or passed without proper assessment of the husband's financial capacity

2. Whether the Family Court committed a jurisdictional error or illegality in awarding maintenance despite the husband's claim of voluntary desertion by the wife

Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (B.N.S.S.), which provides for the maintenance of wives and children

The quantum of maintenance must be determined by balancing the financial capability of the husband with the genuine needs of the claimants, while considering factors such as social and economic status, standard of living, and the prevailing price index/cost of living

The High Court reviewed the Family Court’s findings and determined that the lower court had exercised its judicial discretion judiciously

The Court noted that the Family Court had appropriately considered all relevant factors, including the parties' social standing and the current economic climate, before arriving at a reasoned conclusion

The Court rejected the husband's contention that the amount was excessive, stating that a total maintenance of Rs. 3,000 per month for a wife and child cannot be viewed as "shockingly on higher side" or inadequate given the circumstances

The Court found no evidence of any "illegality, infirmity, or jurisdictional error" in the impugned order that would justify interference under its revisional jurisdiction

The Court dismissed the criminal revision for lack of merit

The trial court was directed to be informed of the order for necessary compliance