Revisional interference in maintenance awards is impermissible absent patent error, perversity, or manifest miscarriage of justice.

The applicants (wife and daughter) filed Criminal Misc. Application No. 889 of 2015 under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. before the Additional Family Court, Vadodara, seeking maintenance of ₹30,000 and ₹15,000 per month respectively

The wife alleged she was subjected to mental and physical harassment following the birth of a daughter and was eventually deserted

She claimed the respondent-husband earned substantial income from 60 vighas of ancestral agricultural land and equipment

On 25.04.2017, the Family Court awarded ₹7,000 to the wife and ₹3,000 to the daughter

The applicants moved the High Court seeking an enhancement of these amounts, asserting the award was inadequate relative to the respondent’s income and status

1. Whether the maintenance awarded by the Family Court was grossly inadequate and failed to consider the actual income and financial status of the respondent

2. Whether the impugned order suffered from a patent error or miscarriage of justice warranting the exercise of revisional jurisdiction

The court applied Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. regarding the grant of maintenance and Section 127 of the Cr.P.C. regarding the modification of such orders

It relied on the evidentiary standards for maintenance established in Vanitaben Naranbhai v. N.R. Makwana, 1991 (1) GLH 227

Regarding the scope of its powers, the court applied the principles from Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander, 2012 (9) SCC 460, which restricts revisional jurisdiction to cases of patent error or miscarriage of justice rather than a mere difference of opinion on factual findings

The High Court reviewed the evidence and observed that the respondent’s income was approximately ₹25,000 per month

The Court found that the Family Court had properly appreciated the oral and documentary evidence concerning cruelty, desertion, and the respondent's financial capacity

Applying the Vanitaben Naranbhai precedent, the Court held that the awarded amount (totaling ₹10,000) was reasonable in proportion to an income of ₹25,000

The Court further determined that the applicants failed to demonstrate any patent error or perversity in the Family Court's reasoning

Under the restrictive scope of revision defined in Amit Kapoor, the Court declined to interfere with the concurrent findings of the lower court, noting that the Family Court had assigned proper reasons for its decision

The Court granted the applicant-wife liberty to file a fresh application under Section 127 of the Cr.P.C. before the concerned Court should there be a change in circumstances or a need for modification due to the passage of time since the original 2017 order