Maintenance of 25% of husband’s net income is legally proper for wife and minor child.

The applicant-wife (Kavita) and non-applicant (Kapil) married on 09.12.2017 and had a daughter in 2018

The wife filed for maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C., alleging dowry harassment and cruelty, stating the husband earned Rs. 1,75,000/- monthly at Dabur Nepal Pvt. Ltd.

The husband initially appeared but later remained absent, leading to the Family Court proceeding ex-parte against him

On 20.07.2023, the Family Court awarded Rs. 10,000/- per month to the wife and Rs. 5,000/- to the daughter

Both parties challenged this order: the wife sought enhancement, while the husband sought reduction/setting aside

1. Whether the Family Court committed a procedural illegality by proceeding ex-parte against the husband

2. Whether the maintenance amount of Rs. 15,000/- per month was just and proper based on the husband's income and the parties' needs

The court applied Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. regarding the obligation to maintain a wife and child

It relied on the Supreme Court mandate in Rajnesh v. Neha and Others (2021) 2 SCC 324, requiring parties to file affidavits of assets and liabilities

Furthermore, it followed the precedent established in Kalyan Dey Chowdhury v. Rita Dey Chowdhury (AIR 2017 SC 2383) and Amit Pandey v. Manisha Pandey (2020 Law Suit (M.P.) 1098), which holds that 25% of the husband’s net income is generally an appropriate benchmark for maintenance

The court found no procedural error in the ex-parte proceedings, noting the husband's repeated absences despite being given opportunities to join

Regarding quantum, the court examined the husband's pay slips from Nepal, which showed a gross income of Rs. 1,10,836.47 Nepalese Rupees and a net pay of Rs. 87,036.08 Nepalese Rupees

Converting this to Indian currency, the court determined the husband's net monthly income to be approximately Rs. 54,000/-

Applying the 25% rule from Kalyan Dey Chowdhury, the court calculated a presumptive maintenance of Rs. 13,500/-

It reasoned that the awarded total of Rs. 15,000/- (for both wife and child) was in substantial conformity with this principle and catererd to the needs of both applicants

The court declined to re-appreciate evidence as there was no patent illegality or perversity

It held that the maintenance of Rs. 10,000/- for the wife and Rs. 5,000/- for the minor daughter was reasonable given the husband's net Indian income of approximately Rs. 54,000/-

The court concluded that neither side established grounds for interference under the limited revisional jurisdiction of Sections 397/401 Cr.P.C.