High Court Can't Enhance Or Reduce Maintenance Amount In Revisional Jurisdiction; Remedy Lies U/S 146 BNSS: Allahabad HC

A bench of Justice Achal Sachdev observed that the proper remedy for the modification or alteration of maintenance allowance due to changed circumstances lies solely under Section 146 BNSS, which is pari materia with Section 127 CrPC, before the court that passed the original order.

The Court observed that while dealing with a revision plea, it cannot re-appreciate evidence or weigh changed circumstances afresh, as its role is strictly 'supervisory', which is confined to correcting any illegality, impropriety, or jurisdictional error.

Underscoring that revisional power is not appellate power, the bench added that while the High Court may quash, remit, or set aside an order if it is perverse or illegal, it can't substitute its own factual determination for that of the trial court.

Briefly put, the bench was dealing with a revision plea moved by a wife challenging the family court's order in her Section 125 CrPC plea, directing the opposite party no. 2-husband to pay maintenance of Rs. 2500/- per month to the revisionist.

It was the wife's case that the parties got married in November 2022 according to Muslim rites, wherein her parents gave approximately Rs. 15 lakh in dowry.

She alleged that she faced constant taunts, harassment for an additional dowry of Rs. 5 lakh and a new car and she was also subjected to repeated sexual assault by her brother-in-law in front of her husband.

She further submitted that she was thrown out of her matrimonial home and her husband pronounced triple talaq over the phone on July 30, 2023.

Before the High Court, her counsel sought an enhancement of the maintenance to Rs. 30,000 per month, claiming that the husband earns around Rs. 45,000 per month and is fully capable of providing the claimed amount.

The opposite party no. 2-husband, on the other hand, argued that the parties were divorced in accordance with Sharia law after he paid Rs. 5,60,000/- to the revisionist.

It was his case that he earns a meagre Rs. 5,000 to 6,000 per month as a daily wage labourer, while his educated wife earns approximately Rs. 15,000 per month through tutoring and embroidery.

Perusing the impugned order, the bench noted that the evidence on file established that the revisionist has no source of income and the healthy and young husband had failed to prove that the revisionist is capable of supporting herself.

The High Court, however, observed that its hands are tied by the statutory limits of revisional jurisdiction and it can't grant the prayer of a party which seeks enhancement of maintenance in revision.

"Enhancement necessarily requires proof of changed circumstances (increase in income, inflation, new needs, etc.). This involves adducing and evaluating fresh evidence, inviting objections from the non-applicant, and forming a factual opinion...Revisional courts lack the power to conduct this evidentiary exercise", the Court remarked.

The bench further clarified that the proper remedy for enhancement lies before the court that passed the order, in the form of an Alteration petition under Section 127 CrPC/Section 146 BNSS, before the trial court, if circumstances have changed (e.g., increase in income, inflation, new needs of dependents).

Therefore, the revisionist was asked to approach the concerned court under Section 127 CrPC/Section 146 BNSS to seek enhancement of the maintenance amount.

The bench added that, if so filed, the application shall be decided by the court concerned in accordance with the law after hearing both parties.

The revision plea was, thus, dismissed.