Maintenance quantum warrants no revisional interference absent illegality, infirmity, or jurisdictional error.

Applicant No. 1, the wife of the non-applicant, and Applicant No. 2, their minor daughter, filed an application under Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (“BNSS”) seeking maintenance of ₹25,000 per month.

The wife alleged matrimonial cruelty, desertion, lack of independent income, and that the husband was employed as an Assistant Manager at Akash Institute, Jhansi, earning approximately ₹55,000 per month.

The husband denied the allegations, asserted that the wife had voluntarily withdrawn from his company without sufficient cause, and claimed that he was unemployed and responsible for maintaining his parents.

The Family Court partly allowed the application and awarded ₹8,000 per month to the wife and ₹3,000 per month to the minor daughter, effective from the date of the order dated 30.05.2026.

Aggrieved by the quantum, the applicants filed the present revision under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act, 1984, seeking enhancement, preferably from the date of the application.

1. Whether the maintenance of ₹8,000 per month to the wife and ₹3,000 per month to the minor daughter was inadequate and required enhancement having regard to their needs, the cost of living, and the husband’s alleged income.

2. Whether the Family Court’s order disclosed any illegality, infirmity, or jurisdictional error warranting interference in revision under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act, 1984.

The Court applied Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act, 1984, which permits revisional interference with orders of a Family Court where warranted by legal or jurisdictional error.

It considered Section 144 of the BNSS, 2023, under which a wife and minor child may claim maintenance where they lack sufficient means of support.

In determining the adequacy of maintenance, the relevant considerations include the parties’ income and financial capacity, social and economic status, standard of living, reasonable needs, and prevailing cost of living and price index.

The applicants also relied upon the principles concerning assessment of maintenance laid down in Rajnesh v. Neha.

The High Court examined the Family Court’s order and found that the lower court had considered the husband’s income, the parties’ social and economic status, their standard of living, prevailing living costs, and the applicants’ genuine needs.

Although the applicants contended that the husband earned approximately ₹55,000 per month and that the award did not adequately meet the wife’s and child’s requirements, the High Court held that the Family Court had exercised its discretion judiciously and that the aggregate award of ₹11,000 per month could not be regarded as inadequate in the circumstances.

As no illegality, infirmity, or jurisdictional error was established, the limited scope for revisional interference was not attracted.

It held that the maintenance awarded—₹8,000 per month to Applicant No. 1 and ₹3,000 per month to Applicant No. 2 from the date of the Family Court’s order—did not warrant enhancement and that the impugned order contained no error requiring revision.

The criminal revision was accordingly dismissed, and the Registry was directed to transmit a certified copy of the order to the Family Court for information and compliance.