Wife's independent income cannot bar maintenance enhancement where the husband’s salary has substantially increased.

The applicant (husband) challenged the judgment dated 19.02.2021 passed by the Family Court, Gandhinagar, which enhanced the monthly maintenance payable to respondent No. 2 (wife) from Rs. 5,000 to Rs. 15,000.

The parties married, but the wife was allegedly driven out of the matrimonial home in 2018.

Initially, maintenance was fixed at Rs. 5,000 under Section 125 Cr.P.C. in 2019.

The wife subsequently filed for enhancement under Section 127 Cr.P.C., asserting the husband’s income had risen to approximately Rs. 70,000–75,000 per month.

The husband contended that his net salary was lower, he had liabilities toward his parents, and the wife earned approximately Rs. 15,000 from tailoring.

During proceedings, it was admitted that the husband’s gross salary had reached Rs. 90,000.

1. Whether the fact that a wife has independent earning capacity or is highly qualified is a sufficient ground to deny or strictly limit her claim for maintenance.

2. Whether a change in the husband’s financial circumstances and salary justifies an enhancement of maintenance under Section 127 of the Cr.P.C.

3. Whether the Revisional Court should interfere with the Family Court’s findings in the absence of a patent jurisdictional error or illegality.

The court primarily applied Section 127 of the Cr.P.C., which permits the alteration of maintenance orders upon proof of a change in circumstances.

It relied on Sunita Kachwaha v. Anil Kachwaha (2014), establishing that a wife’s earning capacity or qualification is not a valid ground to reject maintenance if she cannot maintain herself.

The court cited Bhuwan Mohan Singh v. Meena (2015) regarding the husband's social and lawful duty to provide the wife with the same standard of living she enjoyed during marriage.

It referenced Bhagwan Dutt v. Kamla Devi (1975) concerning the criteria for enhancement and Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander (2012) regarding the restricted scope of revisional jurisdiction.

The Court reasoned that maintenance is a tool for "social justice" under the Preamble of the Constitution, intended to support marginalized sections.

It rejected the applicant’s argument that the wife’s tailoring work disqualified her from receiving enhanced maintenance, citing Sunita Kachwaha to affirm that even qualified or earning wives are entitled to support if they cannot maintain their accustomed standard of living.

Regarding the "change in circumstances" under Section 127, the Court noted that the husband’s salary had substantially increased from Rs. 54,385 in 2019 to nearly Rs. 90,000 gross by the time of the hearing.

It further observed that the husband’s claims of financial burden were weakened by evidence that his mother was a pensioner and his father was self-sustaining.

Consequently, the Court found the Family Court’s decision to increase maintenance by Rs. 10,000 to be reasonable and commensurate with the husband’s current income and the parties' status.

It affirmed that the husband cannot shirk his legal and ethical duty to maintain his wife at a standard of living consistent with his own income.

The court concluded that the enhancement from Rs. 5,000 to Rs. 15,000 was justified by the significant increase in the husband's salary and the absence of other substantial liabilities.

The Revision Application was dismissed as non-maintainable.