Separate residence and restitution proceedings do not, by themselves, disentitle a wife from maintenance.

The applicant-husband and respondent No. 1-wife were married on 1 March 2022, and a son, respondent No. 2, was born on 2 July 2023.

The wife alleged that she was subjected to mental cruelty and dowry-related harassment, compelling her to reside separately with her parents; she also claimed that she had no independent income and was unable to maintain herself and the minor child.

The husband denied the allegations and contended that the wife had voluntarily left the matrimonial home and refused to resume cohabitation.

The Family Court, by order dated 11 March 2026 in M. Criminal Case No. 71/2024, directed the husband to pay monthly maintenance of ₹2,500 to the wife and ₹1,500 to the minor son, totalling ₹4,000 per month.

The husband challenged that order in the present criminal revision.

1. Whether the wife’s separate residence, the Section 9 restitution proceedings, the alleged compromise and the mutual separation deed disentitled her from claiming maintenance?

2. Whether the Family Court properly assessed the parties’ respective financial circumstances, including the wife’s alleged independent income and the husband’s liabilities, while awarding maintenance?

3. Whether the Family Court’s maintenance order disclosed any illegality, infirmity or jurisdictional error warranting interference in criminal revision?

The Court applied the statutory principles governing maintenance proceedings, under which a legally wedded wife unable to maintain herself and a minor child may claim maintenance from the husband/father, subject to consideration of the parties’ circumstances and the wife’s entitlement in the facts of the case.

Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, concerning restitution of conjugal rights, was considered as part of the procedural and factual background but was not treated as automatically barring a maintenance claim.

The Court further applied the limited scope of revisional interference, holding that interference is justified only where the subordinate court’s order suffers from illegality, material infirmity or jurisdictional error.

The quantum of maintenance must be reasonable and proportionate to the basic needs of the wife and minor child, having regard to the financial capacity and liabilities of the husband.

The Court found that the Family Court had properly recognised respondent No. 1 as the applicant’s legally wedded wife and respondent No. 2 as their minor son, and had considered their needs and the parties’ respective circumstances.

The wife’s separate residence and the husband’s initiation of Section 9 proceedings did not, by themselves, establish that she was disentitled to maintenance.

The alleged compromise and Chhod-Chhutti Ikrarnama had been considered in the context of the pleadings and evidence, but did not warrant denial of maintenance on the facts of the case.

The husband’s allegations regarding the wife’s independent earnings and his own financial liabilities were treated as matters of evidentiary appreciation, which had already been assessed by the Family Court.

The award of ₹2,500 to the wife and ₹1,500 to the minor child was held to be modest and neither excessive nor disproportionate to their basic needs.

Consequently, no illegality, infirmity or jurisdictional error was established to justify revisional interference.

It held that the wife’s separate residence, the prior restitution proceedings, the alleged compromise and the mutual separation deed did not, in the circumstances, defeat her maintenance claim.

The Family Court had correctly assessed the evidence and awarded reasonable maintenance of ₹2,500 per month to the wife and ₹1,500 per month to the minor son.

The criminal revision was accordingly dismissed as meritless, and a certified copy of the order was directed to be transmitted to the trial Court for information and compliance.