Wife's limited independent income does not absolve able-bodied husband from duty to provide adequate maintenance.

The applicant-wife and respondent-husband were married approximately twenty years prior to the proceedings and have two children

The applicant alleged she was subjected to cruelty and physical abuse by the respondent and his mother, leading to her desertion

She initially filed Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 1076 of 2009 under Section 125 of the CrPC, seeking ₹8,000 per month.

On 23.12.2011, the Family Court awarded ₹2,500 per month, noting the husband’s estimated income was ₹15,000 and the wife earned ₹4,500 from a trust

The wife filed the present revision seeking enhancement, contending that she is now unemployed, the son has attained majority (relieving the husband of that maintenance burden), and cost of living has risen

1. Whether the maintenance amount of ₹2,500 per month awarded by the Family Court was legally adequate considering the husband’s financial capacity and the wife’s lack of independent income

2. Whether the fact that a wife is earning a limited income is sufficient grounds to restrict or deny a reasonable maintenance amount

The court applied Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, concerning revisional jurisdiction

It relied on Chaturbhuj v. Sitabai and Sunita Kachwaha & Ors. v. Anil Kachwaha, which establish that a wife’s earnings do not automatically disqualify her from receiving reasonable maintenance

Furthermore, it cited Bhuwan Mohan Singh v. Meena & Ors. and Anju Garg v. Deepak Kumar Garg, affirming that an able-bodied husband has a "sacrosanct duty" and moral obligation to maintain his wife, even if it requires physical labor

Finally, it referenced Rajnesh v. Neha regarding the necessity of accounting for inflation and the parties' standard of living

The High Court found that the Family Court erred in awarding a meager amount of ₹2,500

While the Family Court assessed the husband’s business income at ₹15,000, it failed to properly account for the "spiralling inflation rates" and the husband’s decreased liabilities, as he no longer pays maintenance for the son who attained majority

Justice Suthar reasoned that the husband's duty stands on a "higher pedestal" and he cannot evade this legal and moral obligation by claiming limited income if he is able-bodied

The Court observed that even if the wife had some income previously, it does not absolve the husband from providing a maintenance amount that allows her to sustain herself in the current economic climate

The High Court partly allowed the revision application and modified the order of the Family Court No. 1, Ahmedabad. Rule was made absolute to this extent