Maintenance of Rs. 4,000 to Wife Is Justified Based on Husband Being an Able-Bodied Person.

The petitioner (husband) challenged the order dated 06.12.2024 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, East Champaran, in Maintenance Case No. 55 of 2022.

The Family Court had directed the petitioner to pay ₹4,000 per month as maintenance to his wife (Respondent No. 2) from the date of filing (14.02.2022), along with ₹5,000 as litigation costs.

The petitioner contended that the order was mechanical and failed to discuss his specific source of income or a logical basis for the assessment.

Respondent No. 2 argued that the petitioner is an able-bodied man with seven bighas of land and a business, and that the amount is realistic.

1. Whether the Family Court's order granting maintenance was illegal or irregular due to the lack of documentary evidence regarding the petitioner's exact income.

2. Whether the High Court, under its revisional jurisdiction, should interfere with the quantum of maintenance fixed by the Family Court.

The Court applied the principles governing maintenance under the Code of Criminal Procedure/Section 125 (implied) and the scope of Revisional Jurisdiction.

Maintenance must be "just and proper" and an able-bodied husband has a legal obligation to maintain his wife.

A Revisional Court cannot sit as an Appellate Court to re-weigh facts or disputed contentions unless there is a patent illegality, infirmity, or irregularity in the impugned order.

The Court noted that while Respondent No. 2 failed to produce documentary evidence proving the petitioner earned ₹1,50,000 per month, the Family Court correctly identified the petitioner as an "able-bodied man".

The Court reasoned that in cases where income documents are unavailable or suppressed, the court may determine maintenance based on prevailing standards, such as daily wage rates in the State of Bihar.

Assessing the amount of ₹4,000 per month, the Court found it to be neither excessive nor unreasonable, but rather "just and proper" given the economic realities.

The Court further analyzed the limits of its own jurisdiction, stating that it cannot substitute its own opinion for that of the Family Court regarding disputed facts in a revision petition.

The High Court affirmed the order of the Principal Judge, Family Court, East Champaran, and dismissed the revision petition.