Maintenance awards warrant no revisional interference absent perversity or patent illegality.

The parties were married on 25 May 2010 and had two minor children.

The Family Court, Ujjain, allowed the wife’s application under Section 125 CrPC and ordered the husband to pay ₹10,000 per month to the wife and ₹3,000 per month to each child, from 31 July 2024.

The husband sought to set aside or reduce the award, alleging that the wife had deserted him, was capable of earning, and that the amount exceeded his means.

The wife and children sought enhancement, asserting that the husband had greater income and that the award did not meet their needs.

Whether the Family Court’s maintenance award should be set aside or reduced on the grounds raised by the husband, including the wife’s alleged desertion and his asserted limited means.

Whether the maintenance awarded to the wife and children should be enhanced because it was inadequate in light of the husband’s alleged income and their needs.

Whether either revision disclosed perversity, illegality, or other grounds warranting interference in the High Court’s revisional jurisdiction.

Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act, 1984, confers revisional jurisdiction that is not equivalent to appellate review: the High Court does not reappreciate evidence or substitute its factual view unless the Family Court’s findings are perverse, unsupported by evidence, or affected by patent illegality resulting in a miscarriage of justice.

The maintenance proceedings arose under Section 125 CrPC.

The Court also considered the income and asset affidavits filed pursuant to Rajnesh v. Neha, (2021) 2 SCC 324, which it identified as governing the assessment of maintenance.

The Family Court had found that the wife was compelled to live separately because of harassment and neglect, had no independent income, and was unable to maintain herself and the children. It also found that the husband had sufficient means, including ownership or registration of two trucks and income from the family business.

Having considered those findings, the income affidavits, and the parties’ submissions, the High Court concluded that the Family Court had properly applied Rajnesh v. Neha and fixed a reasonable amount.

The husband showed no basis for reduction or setting aside, and the wife showed no basis for enhancement; neither revision established the threshold for revisional interference.

A copy was directed to be sent to the Family Court, and any pending interlocutory applications were disposed of.