Maintenance enhancement must balance the husband’s income and liabilities against the wife’s educational qualifications and needs.

The applicant (husband) challenged a Family Court order dated 25.09.2024, which enhanced maintenance for his wife (Respondent No. 2) and minor child (Respondent No. 3) under Section 127 of the CrPC

Originally, maintenance was set in 2019 at ₹2,500 for the wife and ₹4,000 for the child (Total: ₹6,500)

The Family Court increased these amounts to ₹4,500 and ₹7,000 respectively (Total: ₹14,000) citing inflation and the passage of five years

The husband contended the enhancement was exorbitant as his monthly income of ₹25,900 must also support his 76-year-old ailing mother

1. Whether the Family Court exercised its discretion arbitrarily by doubling the maintenance amount without sufficient justification regarding the husband's financial capacity and liabilities

2. Whether the wife’s educational qualification (M.Com) and the husband's responsibility toward his mother are relevant factors in modifying a maintenance award

The court applied Section 127 of the Code of Criminal Procedure regarding the alteration of maintenance allowance based on a change in circumstances

It relied on the revisional principles established in *Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander*, holding that jurisdiction should be invoked to correct manifest errors or arbitrary exercises of discretion

Furthermore, it applied the criteria from *Smt. Jasbir Kaur Sehgal v. District Judge, Dehradun*, which mandates balancing the wife’s needs and status against the husband's capacity to pay and his existing legal obligations, ensuring the amount is neither "excessive or extortionate"

The Court observed that while inflation and the passage of five years justified an increase, the Family Court failed to provide "palpable reasons" for doubling the amount to ₹14,000, which constituted more than 50% of the husband's ₹25,900 income

The Court noted that the wife is highly educated (M.Com), which must be balanced against her current jobless status to prevent "encouraging idleness"

Crucially, the Court found the lower court ignored the husband’s liability to maintain his ailing mother

By applying the principle of proportionality, the Court determined that the total enhancement was excessive given the husband's limited income growth (from ₹20,000 to ₹25,900) since the original order

The court reduced the wife’s enhanced maintenance from ₹6,500 to ₹5,500 per month and the child’s from ₹7,500 to ₹6,500 per month, resulting in a total monthly maintenance of ₹12,000

This reduced amount is payable from the date of the application

The stay application was disposed of accordingly