Revisional courts cannot enhance maintenance absent perversity, illegality, or manifest unreasonableness in the quantum fixed.

The applicant-minor was born in 1997 from the marriage between her mother and respondent no. 2, solemnised on 8 May 1995.

Alleging cruelty and monetary demands, the applicant’s mother left the matrimonial home with the minor in June 2008.

On 16 March 2010, she instituted proceedings under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“CrPC”), seeking maintenance for herself and the minor applicant

Respondent no. 2 disputed the allegations, contending that the mother had voluntarily deserted him, was employed with a bank, and was capable of maintaining herself; he stated that his income was approximately Rs.30,000–40,000 per month

The Family Court rejected the mother’s claim in her individual capacity but awarded the minor maintenance of Rs.4,000 per month from the date of the application, payable with arrears.

The minor thereafter filed the present revision application under Sections 397 and 401 CrPC, seeking enhancement on the ground that respondent no. 2 had substantially higher income from bank employment and share trading.

1. Whether the Family Court erred in assessing respondent no. 2’s income and in fixing maintenance for the minor at Rs.4,000 per month?

2. Whether the High Court, in exercise of its limited revisional jurisdiction under Sections 397 and 401 CrPC, could interfere with the quantum of maintenance fixed by the Family Court?

3. Whether the minor applicant was entitled to enhancement of maintenance on the basis of the alleged higher income and lifestyle of respondent no. 2?

Section 125 CrPC is a measure of social justice intended to prevent destitution and vagrancy, and maintenance must be assessed having regard to the claimant’s reasonable needs, the respondent’s income and earning capacity, his dependants, and the parties’ standard of living

Under Sections 397 and 401 CrPC, the High Court exercises limited supervisory and revisional jurisdiction and may interfere only where the subordinate court’s order suffers from patent illegality, perversity, material irregularity, jurisdictional error, or manifest unreasonableness; revisional jurisdiction is not equivalent to appellate jurisdiction

In State of Kerala v. Puttumana Illath Jathavedan Namboodiri, (1999) 2 SCC 452, the Supreme Court held that reappreciation of evidence in revision is ordinarily impermissible unless a glaring feature results in gross miscarriage of justice

In Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander, (2012) 9 SCC 460, the Court recognised interference where there is a palpable error, non-compliance with law, a completely erroneous decision, or arbitrary exercise of discretion

The factors governing maintenance, including the parties’ status, the claimant’s needs, the respondent’s financial capacity, his reasonable expenses and standard of living, were also considered in light of Rajnesh v. Neha, (2021) 2 SCC 324

The High Court found that the Family Court had properly considered the evidence and that the respondent’s salary slips and income-tax returns established a monthly income of approximately Rs.32,000–38,000

The applicant’s assertions that respondent no. 2 earned Rs.60,000–70,000 per month through employment and share trading, and maintained an extravagant lifestyle, were unsupported by cogent documentary evidence

Although suppression of income may justify a reasonable adverse inference, the material on record did not warrant fixing a speculative or excessive amount

In view of the respondent’s proved income, the minor’s requirements and the parties’ standard of living, the amount of Rs.4,000 per month was held to be a possible and reasonable determination.

Since no exclusion of relevant evidence, reliance on inadmissible material, incorrect legal standard or manifestly unreasonable conclusion was shown, interference in revision would amount to impermissible fresh reappreciation of evidence

The Criminal Revision Application was dismissed, and the Family Court’s judgment dated 4 December 2012 was confirmed.

Rule was discharged and any interim relief was vacated

The Court clarified that the applicant could seek enhancement before the appropriate forum if there was a subsequent change in respondent no. 2’s financial circumstances, subject to law.