The Gujarat High Court partly allowed a husband’s revision plea, reducing monthly maintenance from Rs 14,000 to Rs 12,000, with Justice P. M. Raval holding that while inflation matters, maintenance must match the parties’ status and payer’s capacity, not become excessive.
GUJARAT: The High Court of Gujarat has partly allowed a criminal revision petition filed by a husband, altering a Family Court order that had more than doubled his maintenance liability. While recognizing the effect of inflation, the court held that maintenance must be appropriate to the parties’ status and the payer’s capacity, and should not become “excessive or extortionate.”
Justice P. M. Raval delivered the judgment, reducing the combined monthly maintenance from Rs 14,000 to Rs 12,000.
Factual Background
The matter arose from the Principal Judge, Family Court, Surendranagar’s decision dated September 25, 2024. The wife and child had filed an application seeking enhancement under Section 127 CrPC. In 2019 the Family Court had awarded Rs 2,500 to the wife and Rs 4,000 to the child (total Rs 6,500). In 2024, the court increased those amounts to Rs 6,500 for the wife and Rs 7,500 for the child, raising the monthly total to Rs 14,000. The husband challenged this enhancement, contending it was excessive and would consume over half his monthly income.
Contentions
Counsel for the husband submitted that his assessed monthly income, per his Income Tax Returns, was about Rs 25,900. He argued the trial court effectively doubled the maintenance because five years had passed and due to inflation, without adequately considering his actual financial capacity or that the revised order would divert more than half his income to maintenance.
The wife and child supported the Family Court’s enhancement. They pointed out that the wife, who had been employed when the earlier order was passed, is now unemployed. They also noted the husband’s income had risen from around Rs 20,000 to about Rs 26,000, which, they argued, justified the higher maintenance.
A key aspect of the husband’s challenge was his pre-existing financial obligations and family responsibilities. He stated he had to support his ailing mother, about 76 years old, and argued the Family Court’s decision ignored the costs of her care and his own subsistence. He claimed that with a monthly income of Rs 25,900, an obligation to pay Rs 14,000 would leave him with less than half his earnings, making the amount “quite exorbitant.”
Court’s Analysis:
Justice Raval observed that revisional jurisdiction is limited and should not be exercised routinely; it should be used “only with a view to correct the manifest error,” citing the Supreme Court’s decision in Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander and Anr. (2012) 9 SCC 460.
On the merits, the court noted the husband’s income had increased only marginally. Regarding the wife’s position, the court observed:
“The fact remains that the wife has studied upto M.Com. and the same can be one of the aspects while fixing the amount of maintenance though she is not earning.”
Relying on Smt. Jasbir Kaur Sehgal v. District Judge, Dehradun and Others (AIR 1997 SC 3397), the High Court reiterated that maintenance should be fixed by considering the parties’ status, needs, and the husband’s capacity to pay after meeting his own reasonable expenses and obligations.
The court stated:
“The amount of maintenance fixed for the wife should be such as she can live in reasonable comfort considering her status and the mode of life she was used to when she lived with her husband… At the same time, the amount so fixed cannot be excessive or extortionate.”
The court also took into account the husband’s duty to care for his 76-year-old mother, observing that given the income accepted by the Family Court, it would be “difficult to survive by the husband by paying such an enhanced more than double maintenance amount.” The High Court found that the Family Court had doubled the maintenance “without giving any palpable reasons therefor.”
Decision
Seeking to “strike a balance in view of the admitted facts,” the High Court revised the maintenance amounts. It ordered:
- Wife’s maintenance reduced from Rs 6,500 to Rs 5,500 per month.
- Child’s maintenance reduced from Rs 7,500 to Rs 6,500 per month.
The total monthly maintenance was fixed at Rs 12,000, to be paid from the date of the application.
Accordingly, the revision petition was partly allowed and the rule made absolute.
Case Title: MBD vs. State of Gujarat & Ors. R/Criminal Revision Application (For Maintenance) No. 181 of 2025
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
