Maintenance enhancement requires perversity, illegality, or material error in the lower court’s assessment.

The applicant-wife and respondent-husband were married on 1 February 2020 under Hindu rites at Junagadh.

After a brief period of cohabitation, the parties began residing separately from 28 May 2020.

The wife initiated proceedings under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, on 20 January 2021.

The Family Court, Junagadh, awarded her maintenance of ₹5,000 per month from the date of the application.

The wife challenged only the quantum, claiming that the husband earned approximately ₹50,000 per month, lived comfortably, and was capable of paying ₹30,000 per month.

The husband opposed enhancement, relying on the wife’s educational qualifications and his obligations towards dependent family members and home-loan liabilities.

Whether the Family Court’s award of ₹5,000 per month as maintenance under Section 125 CrPC required enhancement in light of the husband’s alleged income and financial capacity.

Whether the Family Court’s order disclosed any illegality, impropriety, perversity, arbitrariness, or jurisdictional error warranting interference in revisional jurisdiction.

The Court applied Section 125 CrPC, which is a measure of social justice intended to prevent destitution and vagrancy and to provide a speedy remedy for food, clothing, and shelter to a neglected wife.

Relying on Bhuwan Mohan Singh v. Meena, (2015) 6 SCC 353, and the authorities referred to therein, including Vimla (K.) v. Veeraswamy (K.), Kirtikant D. Vadodaria v. State of Gujarat, and Chaturbhuj v. Sita Bai, the Court held that maintenance provisions must be construed to protect a wife unable to maintain herself.

However, under revisional jurisdiction, interference is limited to cases involving a palpable error, illegality, non-compliance with law, arbitrary exercise of discretion, or findings that are perverse or unsupported by evidence.

This principle was drawn from Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander, (2012) 9 SCC 460.

The High Court found that the Family Court had assessed the husband’s income at approximately ₹47,000 per month but had also considered his responsibility to maintain aged parents, a mentally challenged brother, and a physically handicapped sister, together with his liability to pay home-loan instalments.

The Family Court had further considered the wife’s educational qualifications, her capacity to earn, her residence with her parents, and the absence of proof that she incurred expenses for separate accommodation.

The High Court held that the wife’s assertion that the husband was financially capable of paying a higher amount did not, by itself, justify revisional interference.

Since no material evidence was shown to have been ignored and the Family Court’s conclusions were plausible and evidence-based, the order could not be characterised as arbitrary, perverse, illegal, or jurisdictionally erroneous.

It held that the Family Court had properly exercised its discretion in awarding ₹5,000 per month and that no ground for enhancement or revisional interference was established.

The Revision Application was dismissed, the Family Court’s judgment and order dated 1 June 2022 in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 42 of 2021 were confirmed, and the Rule was discharged.