### Provision of Basic Amenities in Kind Does Not Absolve Legal Obligation to Pay Monetary Maintenance

The applicant (husband) and non-applicant No. 1 (wife) were married on April 21, 2008, and have two minor children (non-applicants No. 2 and 3).

Alleging matrimonial discord, cruelty, and neglect, the wife and children lived separately; they filed for maintenance asserting the applicant failed to support them despite his financial capacity.

The applicant contested the claim, arguing the respondents reside in a house he constructed, he pays their utility bills, and the wife has independent income.

The Family Court, District Baloda Bazar, in Misc. Criminal Case No. 74/2025, passed an order on February 28, 2026, awarding Rs. 2,000 per month to each of the three respondents (totaling Rs. 6,000).

The applicant challenged this order via the present criminal revision.

1. Whether the Family Court erred in awarding monetary maintenance despite the applicant providing residential accommodation and payment of household bills.

2. Whether the quantum of maintenance (Rs. 6,000 per month) was excessive or arbitrary given the financial capacity and liabilities of the applicant.

The court applied the statutory principles of Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (or the corresponding provision of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita), which imposes a legal, moral, and social obligation upon a husband to maintain his wife and minor children who are unable to maintain themselves.

The court relied on the principle that providing basic amenities like housing and utility payments does not absolve a person of the responsibility to provide adequate monetary maintenance to meet other essential living expenses.

The High Court observed that the relationship between the parties was undisputed, establishing the applicant’s legal duty to provide maintenance.

The Court analyzed the Family Court’s findings, noting that while the applicant provided a residence and paid electricity bills, these contributions were insufficient to cover the total standard of living and monetary needs of the respondents.

The High Court found that the trial court properly balanced the status of the parties and their standard of living to determine the quantum.

It rejected the applicant's argument that the order was mechanical, concluding that the Family Court exercised judicious discretion and that providing minor "basic amenities" does not negate the requirement for a monthly cash allowance for sustenance.

The court found no illegality, infirmity, or jurisdictional error in the award of Rs. 2,000 per month per respondent.

Consequently, the criminal revision was dismissed for being devoid of merit and the Court directed a certified copy of the order to be sent to the trial court for immediate compliance.