Maintenance order remanded for fresh determination where award lacked justification against established income and wife’s entitlement.

The petitioner-wife challenged the order dated 26 November 2022 passed by the First Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Jabalpur, in MJCR No. 80/2021, whereby her application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“CrPC”) was allowed and monthly maintenance of ₹12,000 was awarded.

The Family Court found that the petitioner was living separately from the respondent-husband for sufficient reason and that the husband received a take-home salary of ₹83,100 per month, while the wife had no independent income.

Relying on Kalyan Dey Chowdhury v. Rita Dey Chowdhury Nee Nanday , (2017) 14 SCC 200, the petitioner contended that at least 25% of the husband’s net salary should have been awarded as maintenance.

The respondent-husband did not appear before the High Court.

1. Whether the award of ₹12,000 per month as maintenance was just and reasonable in view of the Family Court’s finding that the husband’s take-home salary was ₹83,100 per month and the wife had no income?

2. Whether the High Court should itself enhance the maintenance amount or remand the matter to the Family Court for fresh determination under Section 125 CrPC?

The Court applied Section 125 CrPC, which empowers a Magistrate or competent court to award maintenance to a wife unable to maintain herself where the husband has sufficient means but neglects or refuses to maintain her.

It relied on Kalyan Dey Chowdhury v. Rita Dey Chowdhury Nee Nanday , (2017) 14 SCC 200, wherein the Supreme Court observed that 25% of the husband’s net salary may serve as a reasonable benchmark for maintenance to the wife, while emphasising that maintenance depends on the factual circumstances, the parties’ status, and the paying spouse’s capacity.

The Court also referred to Kulbhushan Kumar v. Raj Kumari , (1970) 3 SCC 129, as cited in Kalyan Dey Chowdhury , for the principle that 25% of the husband’s net salary may be just and proper in an appropriate case.

The High Court found that the Family Court’s own findings established both the wife’s entitlement to maintenance and the husband’s take-home salary of ₹83,100 per month.

In that context, the award of only ₹12,000 per month, without any reasons explaining the basis of calculation, could not be regarded as justifiable or reasonable, particularly in light of the principles stated in Kalyan Dey Chowdhury .

However, because the respondent was unrepresented and the Family Court had not provided adequate reasoning for fixing the amount, the High Court considered it inappropriate to determine the proper quantum finally at the revisional stage.

It therefore remanded the matter for fresh adjudication after restoring the Section 125 CrPC application to its original number.

The High Court set aside the existing determination to the extent necessary and remanded the petitioner’s application under Section 125 CrPC to the Family Court for fresh decision.

The parties were directed to appear before the Family Court on 26 October 2026; in default of appearance, the Family Court was directed to issue notices or summons to secure their presence.

Pending fresh adjudication, the husband was directed to continue paying maintenance at the existing rate of ₹12,000 per month under the impugned order.

Pending applications, if any, were disposed of.