Maintenance Should Not Be Excessive To Encourage Idleness: Gujarat High Court Reduces Enhanced Amount
The Gujarat High Court recently observed that while maintenance may be enhanced due to inflation and changed circumstances, the amount fixed must not be excessive in a manner that encourages idleness or becomes disproportionate to the husband's income and liabilities.Justice P. M. Raval held that the Family Court had doubled the maintenance amount without providing adequate reasons...
The Gujarat High Court recently observed that while maintenance may be enhanced due to inflation and changed circumstances, the amount fixed must not be excessive in a manner that encourages idleness or becomes disproportionate to the husband's income and liabilities.
Justice P. M. Raval held that the Family Court had doubled the maintenance amount without providing adequate reasons or justification.
“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.”
Accordingly, the Court partly allowed the husband's revision petition and reduced the total maintenance payable to the wife and minor child to ₹12,000 per month.
Background
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 ₹2,500 to ₹4,500 per month, and to the minor child from ₹4,000 to ₹7,000 per month, thereby raising the total maintenance from ₹6,500 to ₹14,000 per month.
The husband challenged this enhancement before the High Court through a criminal revision application.
Submissions on Behalf of the Applicant
Appearing for the applicant-husband, Advocate Jaivik Uday Bhatt with Advocate Adnirrudhsinh Kushwaha, submitted that the husband's monthly income, as reflected in his Income Tax Returns, was approximately ₹25,900 per month. It was argued that the enhanced maintenance ordered by the Family Court would require the husband to spend more than 50% of his monthly income on maintenance alone.
Counsel further contended that the applicant also bore responsibility for maintaining his ailing mother aged about 76 years, and that the Family Court had enhanced the maintenance merely because five years had elapsed since the earlier order and due to inflation, which resulted in an excessive and disproportionate increase in the amount.
Submissions on Behalf of the Respondents
Opposing the revision, Advocate A.B. Gateshaniya, appearing 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.
Counsel further submitted that the husband's income had increased from ₹20,000 per month earlier to approximately ₹25,900 per month, and therefore the enhancement of maintenance was justified. It was argued that since the order of the Family Court was just and proper, the High Court ought not to interfere in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction.
Court's Analysis
The Court noted that the scope of revisional jurisdiction is limited, relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander, which held that revision can be exercised only to correct manifest errors or arbitrary exercise of judicial discretion.
The Court observed that although the wife had studied up to M.Com., and although inflation and changed circumstances may justify enhancement of maintenance, the Family Court had doubled the earlier maintenance amount without sufficient reasoning.
Referring to the Supreme Court's decision in Smt. Jasbir Kaur Sehgal v. District Judge, Dehradun, the Court reiterated that maintenance must allow the wife to live in “reasonable comfort considering her status and the mode of life she was used to when she lived with her husband,” but at the same time “the amount so fixed cannot be excessive or extortionate.”
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.
Allowing the revision partly, the High Court modified the Family Court's order and reduced the enhanced maintenance. The Court directed that maintenance payable to the wife be ₹5,500 per month, and to the minor child be ₹6,500 per month, thereby fixing the total maintenance at ₹12,000 per month, payable from the date of the application.
Case Title: Mayurbhai Badvantbhai Dave v. State of Gujarat & Ors.
Case No.: R/Criminal Revision Application No. 181 of 2025
Appearance: Mr. Jaivik Uday Bhatt with Mr. Adnirrudhsinh Kushwaha for the Applicant; Mr. A.B. Gateshaniya for Respondent Nos. 2 and 3; Mr. Rohan Shah, APP for the State.