Maintenance for adopted child is obligatory; reduced due to wife's higher income.

The petitioner-husband, Sri Anil Debbarma, challenged the judgment and order dated February 27, 2025, passed by the Learned Judge, Family Court, Agartala, West Tripura, in Crl.Misc.393 of 2022

This judgment awarded maintenance for the minor son, Master Anibash Debbarma, to the respondent-wife, Smt. Bani Debbarma

The petitioner argued that the respondent-wife, a government servant, was drawing a gross salary of Rs.97,650/- per month, while he was drawing Rs.40,000/- per month as an LDC in the Department of Horticulture

The Family Court had initially awarded Rs.10,000/- per month as maintenance, effective from June 14, 2022

The petitioner contended this amount was unreasonable and exorbitant, given his loan obligations and the respondent-wife's higher income

The respondent-wife did not appear for the hearing in the High Court, despite previous appearances through counsel

The minor son is an adopted son currently studying in Class VII

Whether the maintenance amount of Rs.10,000/- per month awarded by the Family Court to the minor adopted son was unreasonable and exorbitant, requiring modification

Whether the modification of the maintenance order should be effective from June 14, 2022, or a later date

The court primarily applied Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) for revision of the Family Court's order, and Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act

It also considered Section 125 of Cr.P.C., which provides for granting maintenance to a son, including an adopted son, and highlights the obligation of an able-bodied father to provide maintenance to his children

The court based its decision on the principles of considering the financial capacity of both parents and the needs of the minor child for survival, including food, clothing, shelter, education, and medical attendance

The court found that while Section 125 Cr.P.C. allows for maintenance to an adopted son and the petitioner-husband acknowledged his obligation as a father, the financial circumstances of both parents needed to be considered

The court noted that the respondent-wife's net salary was Rs.30,508/- after deductions from a gross salary of Rs.97,650/-, while the petitioner-husband earned Rs.40,000/- per month and also had EMI obligations for an Rs.8,00,000/- loan

Although the respondent-wife's gross income was higher, her net income was similar to or even lower than the petitioner's

However, the court also observed that the respondent-wife had sufficient means to contribute to the minor son's upbringing and was not contesting the petition

Considering the minor son's needs as a Class VII student for food, clothing, shelter, education, and medical attention, and balancing the financial positions of both parents, the court deemed a reduction in maintenance appropriate

The court rejected the petitioner's plea for retrospective effect from June 14, 2022, opting for a prospective application from the month the petition was filed in the High Court

The order dated February 27, 2025, passed by the Learned Judge, Family Court, Agartala, West Tripura, was modified

The petitioner-husband is now directed to provide maintenance for the minor son at the rate of Rs.6,000/- per month, instead of Rs.10,000/-, effective from April 2025

This amount shall be remitted to the respondent-wife's bank account within the first week of the following month

The Rs.1,00,000/- deposited by the petitioner with the Registrar General of the High Court is to be released to the respondent-wife

Any arrear maintenance from June 14, 2022, to March 2025 (at the original rate) shall be cleared in 25 equal installments, and arrears from April 2025 until the date of the order (at the modified rate of Rs.6,000/-) shall be cleared in 3 equal installments