Facts
The applicant (husband) and non-applicant No. 1 (wife) married on January 27, 2012, and have two children (non-applicant Nos. 2 and 3).
Source reference: p. 2The wife filed an application under Section 125 CrPC alleging physical and mental cruelty, neglect, and the husband’s illicit relationship, claiming she was forced out of the matrimonial home on January 4, 2023.
Source reference: p. 2She estimated the husband’s monthly income at ₹50,000 from a painting business and agriculture.
Source reference: p. 2The husband contested this, alleging the wife left voluntarily and that he earns only ₹3,000–₹4,000 per month due to health issues (Hydrocele and Thyroid Disorder).
Source reference: p. 2-3On April 28, 2026, the Family Court awarded maintenance of ₹3,000 to the wife and ₹2,000 to each child, totaling ₹7,000 per month.
Source reference: p. 3The husband filed this criminal revision challenging the legality and factual basis of that order.
Source reference: p. 3Issues
1. Whether the Family Court erred in awarding maintenance by failing to properly appreciate the evidence regarding the husband’s medical condition and limited earning capacity.
Source reference: p. 32. Whether the wife is disentitled from claiming maintenance on the ground of voluntarily deserting the matrimonial home without sufficient cause.
Source reference: p. 33. Whether the impugned order suffers from illegality, perversity, or factual infirmity.
Source reference: p. 4-5Law Applied
Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), which governs the grant of maintenance to wives and children who are unable to maintain themselves, provided the husband has sufficient means and neglects or refuses to maintain them.
Source reference: p. 2, 5The settled principles of matrimonial law that require a balanced assessment of the husband's financial capacity and the standard of living of the dependents to determine a "just" maintenance amount.
Source reference: p. 5Reasoning
The High Court scrutinized the Family Court’s findings and determined they were based on a comprehensive appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence.
Source reference: p. 5Regarding the husband's contention that his medical issues (Hydrocele and Thyroid) and lack of regular income were ignored, the Court found that the Family Court had already considered the rival contentions and financial capacities of both parties.
Source reference: p. 5The Court held that the maintenance amount of ₹7,000 for three individuals was reasonable and well-reasoned given the circumstances.
Source reference: p. 5The Court dismissed the husband's argument regarding the wife's voluntary desertion, noting that the Family Court had properly evaluated the allegations of cruelty and neglect which justified her living separately.
Source reference: p. 5Holding
The High Court answered the issues in the negative, holding that the impugned order was not illegal or perverse and was in accordance with settled legal principles.
The Court found no merit in the revision petition and affirmed the Family Court's order of April 28, 2026; the criminal revision was dismissed, and the Family Court was directed to be informed for compliance.
Source reference: p. 5Original Court PDF
DHANESHWAR SAHUvsKESHARI SAHU
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in