Maintenance order set aside and remanded for fresh adjudication after hearing both parties.

The wife sought maintenance of ₹20,000 per month under Section 125 Cr.P.C. The Family Court, after the husband failed to file objections or cross-examine her, awarded her ₹10,000 per month from the date of the petition, together with costs.

The husband challenged the award, relying on prior matrimonial proceedings, including a decree for restitution of conjugal rights, a dismissed mutual-consent divorce petition, and a dismissed domestic-violence proceeding. He also sought to produce additional documents.

The High Court condoned the delay in filing the revision and allowed the application to produce additional documents.

Whether the Family Court’s maintenance order should be set aside and the matter remanded where the husband had not contested the claim or cross-examined the wife, but relied on prior proceedings and additional documents.

Whether the parties should be given a further opportunity to adduce evidence and make submissions before the maintenance claim is decided on its merits.

The revision was brought under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act, which provides for High Court revision of specified Family Court proceedings.

The maintenance claim was under Section 125 Cr.P.C.

The Court cited no precedent and did not set out a broader substantive test for entitlement to maintenance. Its stated basis for relief was that the order was patently erroneous in light of the circumstances and that the husband should be permitted to lead evidence on the additional documents, with both parties given a reasonable opportunity to present their cases.

The Family Court had proceeded on the wife’s evidence after the husband failed to file objections and did not cross-examine her.

On revision, the High Court considered the history of related matrimonial proceedings and the additional documents tendered by the husband, which had not been considered in the Family Court’s judgment.

Rather than determine the parties’ respective maintenance rights on the existing record, the Court found the award patently erroneous and concluded that the matter should be reheard after both sides had a reasonable opportunity to adduce evidence and argue.

It directed the Family Court to permit both parties to adduce evidence and make submissions, and to dispose of the case on its merits within four months. The parties were directed to appear before the Family Court on 12 November 2026 and to cooperate in the proceedings.