Facts
The petitioner (husband) and respondent No. 1 (wife) married on 05.12.2012, and had a child (respondent No. 2) in 2013
Source reference: p. 1-2Following matrimonial disputes and allegations of cruelty, the wife began residing at her parental home in 2014
Source reference: p. 2The Family Court, vide order dated 13.02.2020, directed the petitioner to pay ₹15,000/- per month to the wife and ₹10,000/- to the child, with a 5% annual enhancement
Source reference: p. 2, 4The petitioner challenged this order, claiming his income was only ₹11,000/- per month despite a degree in Hospitality Management from Scotland, and argued that the automatic annual enhancement was legally impermissible under Section 125
Source reference: p. 5-6Issues
1. Whether the Family Court erred in its assessment of the petitioner’s earning capacity and financial status for the purpose of quantifying maintenance
Source reference: p. 82. Whether the direction for an automatic annual enhancement of 5% in the maintenance amount is permissible under Section 125 Cr.P.C.
Source reference: p. 9Law Applied
Section 125 of the Cr.P.C., which imposes a moral and legal duty on a person with sufficient means to maintain their spouse and children
Source reference: p. 4Jasbir Kaur Sehgal v. District Judge Dehradun, establishing that maintenance must ensure the wife lives in reasonable comfort according to the status she enjoyed during marriage
Source reference: p. 2-3Pyla Mutyalamma v. Pyla Suri Demudu and Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander, which limit High Court interference to cases of patent illegality or jurisdictional error, prohibiting the re-appreciation of evidence
Source reference: p. 8Reasoning
The Court found that the petitioner’s claim of earning only ₹11,000/- per month was "unbelievable" given his international educational qualifications in Hospitality Management from Scotland
Source reference: p. 4, 9The Court noted that the petitioner failed to cross-examine respondent No. 1, leaving her testimony regarding his family’s sound financial status—including the ownership of immovable properties and the gift of an SUV—unrebutted
Source reference: p. 3, 8On the issue of the 5% annual increment, the Court reasoned that such a direction is a proactive measure to counter inflation and the rising cost of living, ensuring the "real value" of maintenance is preserved without forcing the parties to litigate under Section 127 Cr.P.C. for every minor adjustment
Source reference: p. 9-10Holding
The Court answered both issues in the negative, holding that the Family Court’s findings were based on a valid appreciation of evidence and that a reasonable annual enhancement is legally sound
The Revision Petition was dismissed, and the order dated 13.02.2020 directing maintenance of ₹25,000/- total per month plus 5% annual increase was upheld
Source reference: p. 10Original Court PDF
Rahul Gaurav NagarvsNeeta @ Savita & Anr.
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in