Back
Clarifies Strict Boundaries of Revisional Powers in Maintenance Cases
In a significant ruling that underscores the supervisory—not appellate—nature of , the has held that it cannot directly enhance or reduce a maintenance amount awarded under . The proper remedy for any modification lies exclusively before the very court that passed the original order through an .
A Marriage Marred by Allegations of Dowry and Triple Talaq
Smt. Huda Khanam approached the seeking maintenance of ₹30,000 per month after her husband, Rizwan Khan, allegedly pronounced triple talaq over the phone on . She claimed that despite her parents spending approximately ₹15 lakh on the marriage, she faced constant harassment for additional dowry, including a new car and ₹5 lakh cash. The revisionist further alleged repeated sexual assault by her brother-in-laws in the presence of her husband.
The Family Court partly allowed her application on and directed the husband to pay ₹2,500 per month from the date of application. Aggrieved by the quantum, the wife filed the present criminal revision seeking enhancement.
Husband's Counter-Narrative: Divorce, Payment and Self-Sufficiency
Rizwan Khan presented a sharply contrasting version. He denied pronouncing talaq or demanding further dowry. According to him, the couple had already divorced in accordance with Sharia law after he paid the wife ₹5,60,000. He further claimed that he earned a mere ₹5,000–6,000 per month as a daily wage labourer while his educated wife earned around ₹15,000 monthly through tutoring and embroidery work.
Revisional Court Cannot Re-Appreciate Evidence or Fresh Facts
Justice Achal Sachdev carefully distinguished between revisional and appellate powers. The Court observed that when a party seeks enhancement of maintenance, the 's hands remain tied by statutory limits. Enhancement requires proof of —such as increase in income, inflation or new needs—which necessarily involves leading fresh evidence, inviting objections and forming a factual opinion.
The bench relied on the 's direction in Rajnesh v. Neha (2020) that any modification of a maintenance order must be sought in the same proceeding in which the order was passed. Revisional courts, the emphasised, lack the power to conduct this evidentiary exercise.
Key Observations
"It is a well established principal of law that when a party seeks enhancement of maintenance in revision, the High Courts hands are tied by the statutory limits of."
"Revisional power is not. Thecannot directly increase or decrease the maintenance amount in revision."
"Enhancement necessarily requires proof of(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 proper remedy for enhancement lies before the court which passed the order in the form of anunderbefore the."
Practical Path Forward for Aggrieved Spouses
While dismissing the revision, the granted liberty to the revisionist to approach the Family Court under (corresponding to ) for enhancement, if circumstances have indeed changed. The has been directed to decide any such application in accordance with law after hearing both parties.
The judgment serves as a clear reminder that parties seeking modification of maintenance orders must follow the statutorily prescribed route rather than approaching the directly in revision.
