Maintenance enhancement is upheld where the Family Court duly considers evidence and prevailing circumstances.

The petitioner-husband challenged the order dated 30 September 2024 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Gopalganj, in Miscellaneous Case No. 292 of 2017 arising from Maintenance Case No. 58 of 2004.

The Family Court enhanced the respondent-wife’s monthly maintenance from ₹1,000 to ₹5,000 and directed payment of the enhanced amount from 11 October 2017, by the 10th day of each succeeding month.

The petitioner contended that the wife had voluntarily left the matrimonial home due to an alleged illicit relationship, was earning approximately ₹10,000 per month through tailoring, and that he himself was a labourer with meagre income.

He also argued that the enhancement was unjust because he had been paying ₹1,000 per month pursuant to the earlier order dated 9 March 2016.

The wife opposed the revision, submitting that the enhanced amount was reasonable considering inflation and her expenses and that the Family Court had duly considered the evidence and circumstances of the parties.

1. Whether the Family Court’s order enhancing the wife’s maintenance from ₹1,000 to ₹5,000 per month was illegal, improper, irregular, or otherwise unsustainable

2. Whether the petitioner’s allegations regarding the wife’s conduct, alleged income from tailoring, and his own limited income warranted interference with the enhanced maintenance order in revision

The Court applied the principle that revisional interference is warranted where the impugned order suffers from illegality, impropriety, or material irregularity.

In determining the sustainability of an enhanced maintenance award, the court may assess the evidence and materials concerning the parties’ circumstances, the claimant’s maintenance needs, the respondent’s financial capacity, and prevailing inflation and expenses.

No specific statutory provision or judicial precedent was expressly cited in the judgment; the decision proceeded on the basis of the Family Court’s evidentiary assessment and the limited scope of revisional review.

The High Court examined the impugned order and found it to be a detailed order in which the Family Court had considered the evidence and the same contentions raised by the petitioner before the High Court, including the wife’s alleged conduct, alleged tailoring income, and the petitioner’s limited means.

The Court accepted that the enhancement from ₹1,000 to ₹5,000 had been made after due consideration of the materials on record and was not shown to be excessive or legally infirm, particularly in view of inflation and the wife’s maintenance expenses.

Since no illegality, impropriety, or irregularity was demonstrated, the Court declined to exercise revisional jurisdiction in the petitioner’s favour.

The revision petition was accordingly dismissed, and the Family Court’s order was affirmed.