Revision Jurisdiction Cannot Re-Agitate Facts or Introduce New Evidence Absent Perversity or Change of Circumstances

The petitioner (husband) and respondent no. 1 (wife) were married on 12.06.2006 and have two daughters (respondent nos. 2 and 3)

Following matrimonial disputes, the respondents sought maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.)

On 05.10.2024, the Family Court directed the petitioner to pay ₹11,000/- per month to the wife and ₹11,000/- per month to each daughter

The petitioner challenged this order via a revision petition under Sections 438/442 r/w Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, alleging financial incapacity, health issues, and the wife’s ability to earn

1. Whether there is any perversity or illegality in the Family Court’s order that warrants interference under revisional jurisdiction.

2. Whether a husband can be exempted from his maintenance obligations on the grounds of lack of a regular source of income or the potential earning capacity of the wife.

The court applied the principle that revisional jurisdiction is extremely limited and cannot be used to re-evaluate evidence unless perversity is shown, as established in Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander and Pyla Mutyalamma v. Pyla Suri Demudu

It relied on Bhuwan Mohan Singh v. Meena and Anju Garg v. Deepak Kumar Garg, which establish the sacrosanct legal and ethical duty of a husband to support his wife and minor children, even through physical labor

Furthermore, it applied the "Family Resource Cake" principle from Annurita Vohra v. Sandeep Vohra to determine the equitable distribution of income

The Court found that the petitioner failed to demonstrate any legal infirmity in the impugned judgment

It noted that the petitioner’s claims of unemployment and illness were contradicted by his own records, including salary slips showing a prior monthly income of ₹40,000/-, bank statements showing significant credits as recently as March 2022, and evidence of employment offers ranging from ₹80,000/- to ₹1,00,000/-

The Court rejected the argument that the wife’s education (B.Com) or past employment disqualified her from maintenance, noting the petitioner failed to prove she was currently capable of self-support

The Court observed that the petitioner attempted to reagitate facts already considered or introduce new facts (such as loans and mother's dependency) that were not raised before the Trial Court, which is impermissible in a revision petition

It held that the maintenance quantum of ₹11,000/- per month each was broadly in consonance with established legal principles and that the petitioner is estopped from reopening the case de novo. The impugned judgment dated 05.10.2024 was upheld, and all pending applications were dismissed