Revisional Court cannot re-appreciate evidence unless the maintenance award is grossly erroneous, perverse, or lacks legal compliance.

The applicant (husband) sought to quash the judgment of the Family Court, Khambhaliya, dated 29.04.2023, which directed him to pay monthly maintenance of ₹7,500 to Respondent No. 2 (wife)

The applicant contended that the wife voluntarily deserted the matrimonial home without justifiable cause and that he had minimal income (₹7,000–8,000 per month) from manual labor (hamali)

The wife alleged neglect and claimed the applicant possessed sufficient means through family property and business interests

The applicant challenged the order on grounds of factual error and excessive quantum

1. Whether the Family Court erred in its finding that the applicant willfully neglected the respondent-wife and that she was entitled to maintenance under the law.

2. Whether the High Court, in its revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 of the Cr.P.C., can re-appreciate evidence to interfere with the maintenance quantum fixed by the lower court.

Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) regarding the scope of revisional jurisdiction

K. Ravi v. State of Tamil Nadu & Anr. (AIR 2024 SC 4074), which established that revisional powers are extremely limited and should be exercised sparingly only to correct patent defects, errors of jurisdiction, or findings based on no evidence

principles governing maintenance, focusing on the husband's "sufficient means" and the evaluation of "earning capacity" vs. claimed income

The Court observed that the Family Judge had rendered the impugned order after a thorough appreciation of both oral and documentary evidence

It rejected the applicant's argument of voluntary desertion, noting that the Family Court had already evaluated and dismissed his defense regarding sincere efforts for reconciliation

Regarding financial status, the Court found that the Family Court properly assessed the applicant’s earning capacity despite his claim of being a low-wage laborer

The High Court emphasized that under Section 397 Cr.P.C., it cannot act as a court of appeal to re-weigh evidence unless the lower court’s decision is "grossly erroneous" or "perverse"

Finding no such illegality or jurisdictional error, the Court held the maintenance amount of ₹7,500 to be reasonable and commensurate with the applicant’s status

The High Court affirmed that the maintenance award was just and reasonable; Consequently, the Criminal Revision Application was dismissed, and the rule was discharged