Facts
The wife and her minor son sought maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, alleging that the husband had neglected to maintain them.
Source reference: pp. 2–5The Family Court, Belonia, awarded them ₹12,000 per month—₹7,000 to the wife and ₹5,000 to the son—from May 2025, the month of its order.
Source reference: pp. 2–5The wife and son challenged the amount and the commencement date in revision.
Source reference: pp. 2–5The husband, though served, did not appear at the hearing.
Source reference: pp. 2–5The record included the husband’s May 2024 salary slip, showing gross monthly pay of ₹1,08,120.
Source reference: pp. 2–5, 9Issues
1. Whether the Family Court’s award of ₹12,000 per month was inadequate and should be enhanced in light of the husband’s income and the claimants’ needs
Source reference: pp. 5–8, 13–152. Whether maintenance should have been awarded from the date the Section 125 application was filed, rather than from the date of the Family Court’s order
Source reference: pp. 4–5, 11–12, 16Law Applied
The revision was brought under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, challenging an order under Section 125.
Source reference: p. 2In Rajnesh v. Neha & Anr., (2021) 2 SCC 324, the Supreme Court identified relevant factors for determining maintenance, including the parties’ status, the claimant’s reasonable needs, the respondent’s actual income and liabilities, the parties’ standard of living, and the needs of dependent children; the award must be reasonable and neither oppressive nor inadequate.
Source reference: pp. 5–12Rajnesh also directs that maintenance ordinarily be awarded from the date of filing the application.
Source reference: p. 12Reasoning
The High Court found that the husband was employed by the CRPF and, based on the salary evidence, assessed his monthly income at no less than ₹1,00,000 when the application was filed in January 2023; it considered the Family Court’s award insufficient to meet the petitioners’ needs.
Source reference: pp. 9, 13–15Applying Rajnesh, it enhanced the monthly award to ₹15,000, allocating ₹10,000 to the wife and ₹5,000 to the minor son.
Source reference: p. 15It also concluded that the Family Court’s commencement date was contrary to Rajnesh and that maintenance should run from the application’s filing date.
Source reference: pp. 11–12, 16Holding
The revision petition was allowed, and the Family Court’s order was modified.
The husband was directed to pay ₹15,000 per month—₹10,000 to the wife and ₹5,000 to the son—from January 2023.
Source reference: pp. 14–15Amounts already paid were to be deducted; arrears were payable in 30 equal monthly instalments in addition to regular maintenance.
Source reference: pp. 14–15The order directed salary deductions through the husband’s DDO from November 2026, with regular maintenance from October 2026 payable in November 2026 and thereafter until further orders.
Source reference: pp. 14–15Acts & Sections Cited
9 provisions across 4 statutes referred to in this judgment. Each provision opens on LawLens.
Code of Criminal Procedure, 19733
Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 19561
Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 20054
Hindu Marriage Act, 19551
Original Court PDF
Smt. Pampi Biswas Datta and anrvsSri Debabrata Datta
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
