Maintenance must balance the wife’s reasonable needs against the husband’s financial capacity.

The parties married on 12 June 1978 and have two adult children.

The wife alleged that her husband neglected and assaulted her, drove her from the matrimonial home, and failed to maintain her; she sought ₹15,000 per month under Section 125 CrPC.

The husband denied the allegations, disputed her account of his income, and contended that she had left voluntarily.

The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tiruchirappalli, allowed her claim, awarding ₹15,000 per month from the petition date and ₹5,000 in litigation expenses.

The husband challenged the quantum in revision under Sections 397 and 401 CrPC.

1. Whether the wife’s entitlement to maintenance should be set aside because she lived with her adult son and the husband disputed neglect and refusal to maintain her.

2. Whether the award of ₹15,000 per month was disproportionate to the husband’s financial capacity and should be reduced.

3. Whether accrued arrears should be recalculated at the reduced rate.

Section 125 CrPC provides for maintenance to prevent destitution and secure reasonable support for a wife unable to maintain herself.

In fixing maintenance, the court must consider the claimant’s reasonable needs and ability to maintain herself, the payer’s income and financial capacity, and other relevant circumstances; the award should neither be inadequate nor impose an unreasonable burden.

The revision was brought under Sections 397 and 401 CrPC.

No precedent was cited.

The High Court found no sufficient basis to disturb the Magistrate’s finding that the wife was entitled to maintenance.

Her residence with her adult son did not establish that she had independent income or could meet her personal and medical expenses.

Although the alleged illicit relationship was unproved, that did not defeat her claim, which depended on the overall circumstances, including her inability to maintain herself and the husband’s means.

The Court nevertheless considered the husband’s asserted financial difficulties, age and medical condition alongside the wife’s needs, and held that ₹15,000 per month should be reduced to ₹10,000 as a reasonable and proportionate amount.

It held that the reduction would operate prospectively and would not alter arrears accrued under the original order.

The monthly maintenance was reduced from ₹15,000 to ₹10,000 from the date of the High Court’s order; arrears accrued up to that date remained payable at ₹15,000 per month, subject to credit for sums already paid, and were directed to be paid within three months of receipt of the order.

The Magistrate’s remaining directions, including the ₹5,000 litigation-expense award, were left unaltered except as modified.

The order’s operative clause 19(ii) refers to compliance with the original ₹15,000 monthly direction; read with paragraphs 18 and 19(i), the judgment treats that rate as applicable to arrears up to the High Court’s order, with ₹10,000 payable thereafter.