Maintenance must reflect the husband’s financial capacity and enable the wife and child to live with dignity.

The revisionist-wife and respondent no. 2 were married on 17 February 2002.

They had a son, later given in adoption, and a daughter born in 2005.

Owing to matrimonial discord, the wife and minor daughter began residing separately from respondent no. 2 from 29 May 2014.

They initiated proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. in 2015, alleging neglect and refusal to maintain them.

By order dated 23 September 2019, the Principal Judge, Family Court, Dehradun awarded maintenance of ₹12,500 per month each to the wife and daughter.

The revisionist challenged only the adequacy of the quantum, relying on the respondent’s Income Tax Returns showing an average annual income of approximately ₹20,00,000 during the financial years 2018–2019, 2019–2020 and 2020–2021.

The respondent contended that the award was reasonable and that the wife had sufficient means to maintain herself.

The Court applied Section 125 Cr.P.C., whose object is to prevent destitution and vagrancy and to ensure that a wife and minor child are not deprived of the means of subsistence.

The quantum of maintenance must be determined by considering the husband’s income and earning capacity, the financial resources and needs of both parties, the standard of living during the marriage, the child’s age and educational requirements, and the parties’ liabilities and financial commitments; no mechanical formula applies.

Relying on Deepa Joshi v. Gaurav Joshi, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 597, the Court reiterated that maintenance is a primary and continuing obligation of the husband and must enable the wife to live with dignity and in a standard reasonably commensurate with that enjoyed during the marriage.

Financial commitments contributing to the creation or enhancement of assets cannot substantially dilute the husband’s real earning capacity for maintenance purposes.

The award must balance the claimant’s legitimate needs with the payer’s financial capacity and must be realistic without becoming punitive or resulting in unjust enrichment.

The Court considered the respondent’s Income Tax Returns and the affidavits of assets, income and liabilities.

These materials disclosed an average annual income of approximately ₹20,00,000 during the relevant financial years, while no substantial liability was established that would materially impair his ability to maintain the wife and daughter.

Applying the requirement that maintenance be realistic, dignified and proportionate to the respondent’s financial capacity, the Court found the Family Court’s award of ₹12,500 per month each insufficient.

At the same time, it considered the need to avoid imposing an excessive or disproportionate burden and determined that ₹17,500 per month each would meet the ends of justice.

The order dated 23 September 2019 was modified by enhancing the maintenance payable to the wife and daughter from ₹12,500 to ₹17,500 per month each.

The enhanced amount was made payable from the date of the High Court’s judgment, i.e., 7 September 2026.

All other terms of the Family Court’s order remained unaltered.

The respondent was also directed to continue bearing the daughter’s college expenses in accordance with his undertaking before the Court.