Wife and daughter are entitled to monthly maintenance of ₹3,000 each from the filing date.

Sharada and her minor daughter sought enhanced maintenance from Basavaraj, Sharada’s husband and the daughter’s father.

Sharada alleged that Basavaraj had subjected her to harassment and driven her from the matrimonial home; she also alleged that he had contracted a second marriage.

In earlier proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, Sharada had been awarded maintenance of ₹3,000 per month.

The petitioners later sought ₹25,000 per month for Sharada and ₹20,000 per month for their daughter.

Basavaraj did not appear before the Family Court, which dismissed their petition on 30 January 2025.

In the revision petition, Basavaraj disputed the second-marriage allegation but stated that he was willing to continue paying Sharada ₹3,000 per month and to maintain his daughter until she attained majority.

Whether the Family Court’s dismissal of the petitioners’ maintenance claim should be set aside

Whether the petitioners were entitled to maintenance, and, if so, in what amount

The proceeding arose from a maintenance claim under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, as identified in the petition’s prayer; the High Court was exercising revisional jurisdiction under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act, 1984.

The order does not cite or elaborate on any precedent or a specific statutory test for determining the amount of maintenance.

It proceeds on the parties’ undisputed relationship and the respondent’s obligation to maintain his wife and daughter, and treats the daughter’s age and requirements as relevant considerations.

The High Court found it undisputed that Sharada was Basavaraj’s legally wedded wife and that the second petitioner was their daughter.

It also noted Basavaraj’s stated willingness to pay maintenance to both petitioners.

Having regard to their relationship, the daughter’s age and requirements, and Basavaraj’s maintenance obligation, the Court concluded that both petitioners should receive maintenance.

The order does not set out a detailed assessment of the parties’ incomes or explain how the particular monthly amount was calculated.

It directed Basavaraj to pay ₹3,000 per month to Sharada and ₹3,000 per month to their daughter, totalling ₹6,000 per month, from the date the petition in Crl.Misc. No. 97/2024 was filed; payment is to be made regularly each month.