Maintenance order based on evidence of wife's independent earnings and husband's capacity warrants no revisional interference.

The applicants, being the wife (Applicant No. 1) and minor daughter (Applicant No. 2) of the non-applicant, filed an application for maintenance under Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (B.N.S.S.).

The marriage was solemnized on 13.02.2021.

The applicants alleged that the wife was subjected to cruelty and eventually ousted from the matrimonial home.

They contended that the husband owns 14 acres of agricultural land with an annual income of approximately Rs. 10,00,000, while the wife has no independent income.

The non-applicant denied the allegations.

On 30.01.2026, the Family Court awarded maintenance of Rs. 1,000 per month to the wife and Rs. 500 per month to the child.

The applicants moved the High Court in revision, seeking enhancement of the maintenance amount, claiming it was grossly inadequate.

1. Whether the maintenance amount of Rs. 1,500 per month awarded by the Family Court was inadequate and failed to consider the husband's actual financial capacity and the needs of the child.

2. Whether the Family Court's order suffered from illegality or jurisdictional error in its appreciation of the evidence regarding the wife's income.

The Court primarily applied Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (B.N.S.S.) regarding the provision of maintenance to wives and children.

This section (analogous to Section 125 of the CrPC) requires the court to determine maintenance based on the husband's means and the claimant's inability to maintain themselves.

The Court further applied the principle of revisional jurisdiction, which limits interference to cases of patent illegality, perversity, or jurisdictional error.

The High Court scrutinized the Family Court's findings and noted that the lower court had properly appreciated the evidence on record.

Crucially, the Court highlighted that the wife admitted during her cross-examination that she is employed as a teacher at Saraswati Shishu Mandir School, earning Rs. 3,000 per month.

The Court reasoned that the Family Court had already factored in the husband’s earning capacity alongside the wife's independent income and the rising cost of living.

It was observed that the award of Rs. 1,500 per month (total) served as a "minimum maintenance" and was just and proper under the circumstances.

The High Court found that the applicants failed to demonstrate any manifest error or arbitrariness in the lower court's judgment that would warrant a reversal or enhancement in a revisionary proceeding.

The Court affirmed the maintenance award of Rs. 1,000 per month for the wife and Rs. 500 per month for the minor daughter.

The trial court was directed to be informed of the compliance requirements.