Maintenance may be enhanced to meet reasonable living expenses at a district headquarters.

The petitioner, the respondent’s wife, sought maintenance, alleging physical and mental harassment and neglect.

She claimed that the respondent earned substantial income from agricultural land and sought ₹15,000 per month.

The Magistrate awarded ₹5,000 per month, noting that she had not produced material substantiating the respondent’s income.

In appeal, she produced RTC records relating to land owned by the respondent’s mother; the appellate court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the award.

The petitioner then filed this revision seeking enhancement.

Whether the maintenance awarded to the petitioner should be enhanced, given her residence in Chitradurga town and the evidence concerning the respondent’s income.

Whether the RTC records concerning land owned by the respondent’s mother established that the respondent derived income from that land.

The petition was brought under Sections 397(1) and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which provide for the High Court’s revisional jurisdiction.

It applies the case-specific principle that the amount of maintenance should be reasonable in light of the claimant’s circumstances and expenses.

The Court observed that the petitioner had not substantiated the respondent’s income, and the RTC records did not establish that he derived income from land owned by his mother.

Nevertheless, it considered that the petitioner lived in the district headquarters at Chitradurga and that ₹5,000 per month would not be sufficient to meet her day-to-day expenses there.

On that basis, the Court found an additional ₹2,000 per month appropriate, without making a finding that the respondent earned income from the land in question.

The High Court directed the respondent-husband to pay the petitioner monthly maintenance of ₹7,000, enhancing the Magistrate’s award by ₹2,000.