Maintenance Fixed For Estranged Wife Must Not Be Excessive Or Encourage Idleness: Gujarat High Court Reduces Enhanced Amount
Safiya Malik
The Gujarat High Court Single Bench of Justice P. M. Raval partially allowed a revision application filed by a husband challenging an enhanced maintenance order granted by the Family Court in favour of his wife and child. The Court noted that while inflation and changed circumstances may justify revising maintenance, the amount must not be disproportionate to the husband's income and liabilities or encourage idleness in a qualified spouse. Finding that the Family Court had doubled the maintenance without adequate reasoning, the High Court reduced the total monthly maintenance from Rs. 14,000 to Rs. 12,000.
The revision application was filed by the husband challenging the order dated 25 September 2024 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Surendranagar. By the impugned order, the Family Court had partly allowed an application under Section 127 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 seeking enhancement of maintenance. The Court increased maintenance payable to the wife from Rs. 2,500 to Rs. 4,500 per month, and to the minor child from Rs. 4,000 to Rs. 7,000 per month, thereby raising the total maintenance from Rs. 6,500 to Rs. 14,000 per month. It is relevant to note that the original maintenance order under Section 125 of the Code had been passed on 05 July 2019.
Appearing for the applicant-husband, counsel submitted that the husband's monthly income, as reflected in his Income Tax Returns, was approximately Rs. 25,900 per month, and that the enhanced maintenance would require him to spend more than 50% of his monthly income on maintenance alone. It was further contended that the husband also bore responsibility for maintaining his ailing mother aged about 76 years, and that the Family Court had enhanced the amount merely because five years had elapsed since the earlier order and on account of inflation, resulting in an excessive and disproportionate increase.
Opposing the revision, counsel for the wife and child supported the Family Court's order. It was submitted that when the earlier maintenance order was passed, the wife had been earning, but she was currently unemployed and had no source of income. Counsel further submitted that the husband's income had increased from Rs. 20,000 per month to approximately Rs. 25,900 per month, and therefore the enhancement was justified. It was argued that since the Family Court's order was just and proper, the High Court ought not to interfere in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction.
The Court observed that the scope of revision is very limited and cannot be exercised in a routine manner, relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander, which held that such jurisdiction should be invoked only to correct manifest errors, instances of no compliance with provisions of law, findings based on no evidence, ignored material evidence, or arbitrary and perverse exercise of judicial discretion.
The Court noted that the wife held an M.Com. qualification, and that this could be one of the aspects while fixing the amount of maintenance, even though she was not currently earning. Referring to the Supreme Court's decision in Smt. Jasbir Kaur Sehgal v. District Judge, Dehradun, the Court observed that "the Court has to consider the status of the parties, their respective needs, the capacity of the husband to pay having regard to his reasonable expenses for his own maintenance and of those he is obliged under the law and statutory but involuntary payments or deductions." It further observed that "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" and that "the amount so fixed cannot be excessive or extortionate."
The Court observed that although inflation and changed circumstances may justify enhancement, the Family Court had doubled the earlier maintenance amount without sufficient reasoning. It stated that "it is true that considering the rate of inflation, the amount ought to have been enhanced, but merely considering the fact that now wife is not earning and that the inflation rate has gone up and that five years have elapsed after the earlier maintenance order, the trial Court has doubled the amount of maintenance, however, without giving any palpable reasons therefor and/or without giving any justification for coming to such a conclusion and doubling the amount of maintenance."
Considering the husband's income, his responsibility to maintain his elderly mother, and the overall financial circumstances, the Court held that the Family Court's enhancement was excessive and required modification.
The Court directed: "The impugned order, as referred to herein above, is hereby modified and the enhanced amount of total maintenance granted to the respondent No. 2 herein is reduced to Rs.5,500/- from Rs.6,500/- per month and to respondent No. 3 herein, from Rs.7,500/- to Rs.6,500/- per month, thereby, granting total amount of maintenance to the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 herein of Rs.12,000/- per month. The reduced amount of maintenance shall be paid from the date of application. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Criminal Misc. Application No. 1 of 2025 for Stay, does not survive and the same stands disposed of."
Advocates Representing the Parties:
For the Applicant: Advocate Jaivik Uday Bhatt with Advocate Adnirrudhsinh Kushwaha
For the Respondents: Advocate A.B. Gateshaniya; Advocate Rohan Shah, Additional Public Prosecutor.
Case Title: Mayurbhai Badvantbhai Dave Versus State of Gujarat & Ors.
Neutral Citation: 2026:GUJHC:16305
Case Number: R/Criminal Revision Application (For Maintenance) No. 181 of 2025
Bench: Justice P. M. Raval
