Unsubstantiated claims of unemployment do not justify reducing maintenance payable to an aged mother.

Sharadabai, the petitioner’s mother, sought maintenance of ₹20,000 per month from her two sons.

The Family Court directed each son to pay her ₹5,000 per month and ordered them to share litigation expenses of ₹10,000.

Ravindra challenged the maintenance order under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act, seeking a reduction of his share to ₹1,000 per month or permission to maintain his mother in kind by providing accommodation and basic necessities.

He said he was unemployed and had only irregular driving work; he relied on a salary certificate showing earlier earnings of ₹12,000 per month.

1. Whether the Family Court’s direction requiring Ravindra to pay ₹5,000 per month towards his mother’s maintenance should be reduced on the basis of his asserted financial circumstances.

2. Whether Ravindra should be permitted to discharge his maintenance obligation wholly or substantially by providing residential accommodation and other basic necessities instead of paying the ordered amount.

The revision was brought under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act, which provides for High Court revision of specified Family Court orders.

The judgment does not identify the substantive statutory provision governing the mother’s maintenance claim or cite any precedent.

It proceeds on the basis that the sons’ obligation to maintain their mother and the appropriate amount must be assessed in light of the evidence and circumstances before the Family Court.

The High Court found no basis to disturb the Family Court’s assessment.

Ravindra’s salary certificate was not adequately substantiated: he did not examine his employer or produce supporting records, and his assertion that he was no longer working regularly did not establish that he could not pay the ordered amount.

The Court also noted that Sharadabai had raised her sons after her husband left, was aged 63 when she applied, and had sought their support before approaching the court.

It treated the brothers’ property disputes and the claim that the mother was residing with the other son as immaterial to the maintenance application.

The Court did not separately discuss the proposed in-kind arrangement.