01Facts
The petitioner-wife and respondent-husband married on 18 April 2018. The wife alleged cruelty by her husband and his family and was living with her parents.
¶ 1–4In proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C., the Family Court found that she had sufficient reason to live separately and could not maintain herself; it also found the husband, a CRPF constable, had a net salary of Rs. 40,000 per month. The Family Court awarded her monthly maintenance of Rs. 5,000.
¶ 1–4She challenged the amount in revision, seeking at least Rs. 10,000 per month. The husband did not appear before the High Court despite service
¶ 1–402Issues
i.Whether the Family Court’s award of Rs. 5,000 per month was inadequate in light of its finding that the husband’s net salary was Rs. 40,000 per month
¶ 2, 4–6ii.Whether the maintenance application should be remanded for fresh determination, and what maintenance should apply pending that determination
¶ 7–903Law Applied
Section 125 Cr.P.C. provides for maintenance to a wife unable to maintain herself.
In Kalyan Dey Chowdhury v. Rita Dey Chowdhury Nee Nandy, (2017) 14 SCC 200, the Supreme Court observed that, on the facts of that case, 25% of the husband’s net salary was just and proper maintenance; it also affirmed that maintenance depends on the facts and circumstances of each case, including the parties’ status and the paying spouse’s capacity
¶ 5The High Court treated the Family Court’s failure to consider this precedent and the husband’s net salary as an error, without itself fixing a revised amount
¶ 6–7Provisions in the judgment · 1 · Linked ones open on LawLens
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 125
04Reasoning
The Family Court had found both that the wife could not maintain herself and that the husband received net monthly salary of Rs. 40,000, yet awarded only Rs. 5,000 per month. The High Court considered that amount unlawful in light of the relevant factual findings and the maintenance principles in Kalyan Dey Chowdhury.
¶ 4–7Because those matters had not been properly considered, and the husband was unrepresented, the Court remitted the application for fresh decision rather than determining the appropriate amount itself
¶ 4–705Holding
The revision was partly allowed. The Section 125 Cr.P.C. application was remanded to the Family Court for fresh consideration after restoration to its original number.
¶ 7–10The parties were directed to appear before that court on 26 November 2026; if they failed to appear, fresh notice or summons was to issue. Pending the fresh decision, the husband remained liable to pay Rs. 5,000 per month under the impugned order
¶ 7–10Original Court PDF
Savitri DhurvevsKishor Kumar Dhurve
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
