Wife’s capacity to earn does not disentitle her from maintenance commensurate with her marital status.

The parties married on September 27, 2009, and separated on January 6, 2012

The respondent (wife) filed for maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), which resulted in an order dated September 16, 2019, by the Family Court directing the petitioner (husband) to pay Rs. 15,000/- per month

The petitioner challenged this order via a revision petition, contending that the respondent is a qualified Dental Surgeon (MDS) earning approximately Rs. 3.6 lakhs per annum, while he earns only Rs. 27,000/- per month

He further alleged that the respondent suppressed material facts regarding her Income Tax Returns (ITRs) and residence to invoke jurisdiction

1. Whether the High Court, in its revisional jurisdiction, can re-assess or re-appreciate evidence already considered by the Family Court

2. Whether the respondent's professional qualification and potential to earn disentitle her from claiming maintenance from the petitioner

Section 125 of the CrPC regarding the husband's obligation to maintain his wife.

Pyla Mutyalamma v. Pyla Suri Demudu (2011) and Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander (2012) to establish that revisional jurisdiction is limited to correcting material illegalities or irregularities and does not permit the re-appreciation of evidence

Sunita Kuchwaha v. Anil Kuchwala (2014) and Reema Salkan v. Sumer Singh Salkan (2018), which hold that a husband cannot avoid his responsibility even if the wife has the capacity to earn or earns a paltry amount

Shamima Farooqui v. Shahid Khan (2015) and Anju Garg v. Deepak Kumar Garg (2022), the husband is duty-bound to maintain the wife at a standard commensurate with the status she enjoyed during the marriage

The court observed that the petitioner’s arguments were a mere re-agitation of contentions already addressed by the Family Court

Under revisional law, the High Court declined to re-examine the factual merits of the wife's income or the husband’s alleged limited means, noting no material illegality in the Trial Court's findings

The court noted that while the wife was a dentist, the Family Court had already factored in her potential income and ITRs, finding them understated

The court highlighted that the petitioner had suppressed his own financial status; despite claiming a low income, records showed he was a qualified professional whose previous income exceeded Rs. 1 lakh per month, yet he failed to produce current salary slips

The court reasoned that the wife’s capacity to earn does not automatically bar maintenance, as the objective is to ensure her lifestyle remains consistent with the matrimonial standard

The court affirmed that the petitioner is legally obligated to maintain his wife regardless of her professional qualifications. Consequently, the revision petition and all pending applications were dismissed