Maintenance may exceed the amount claimed when delay and increased living expenses justify a higher award.

The wife and minor child sought maintenance, alleging that the wife had been forced to leave the matrimonial home because of ill-treatment by her in-laws and that the husband, employed in an IT company, failed to maintain them.

The husband denied the allegations, asserted that the wife had left without sufficient cause, and contended that she had independent income.

The Family Court found that the wife had been forced to live separately and awarded her ₹30,000 per month and the child ₹20,000 per month.

The husband challenged that order in revision, arguing, among other things, that the Family Court had not made a specific finding on the wife’s reason for leaving and had awarded more than the amount claimed.

1. Whether the absence of a specific Family Court finding on the wife’s reason for living separately warranted interference with the maintenance order.

2. Whether the wife’s alleged directorship in a company and the evidence of the husband’s income affected her entitlement to maintenance.

3. Whether the maintenance amounts awarded by the Family Court required modification, including because they exceeded the amount claimed.

The revision was brought under Sections 397 read with 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which provide the revisional framework invoked by the petitioner.

The Court applied the principles that a spouse’s entitlement to maintenance may be assessed in light of the evidence concerning the parties’ income and the claimant’s independent means, and that the amount may take account of the parties’ circumstances and relevant expenses.

It also stated that parties are required to file Affidavits of Assets and Liabilities; a counter-affidavit in response to the other party’s affidavit did not satisfy that requirement.

The wife’s evidence that she faced ill-treatment and could not live in a joint family was not undermined in cross-examination; the Court therefore concluded that she had sufficient cause to live separately, notwithstanding the Family Court’s failure to make a specific finding on that point.

The husband admitted that his take-home salary was ₹1,03,000 per month, while his evidence that the wife was a company director did not establish that she earned income from the company; the Court accordingly found no independent source of income for her.

In fixing the revised amounts, the Court considered the 2016 filing date, the 2022 order date, the parties’ claims, and the likely increase in income and expenses over time.

The connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.