Maintenance amounts must reflect the reasonable needs of the payee balanced against the payer's financial capacity, ensuring no excessive burden on the payer.

ORAL JUDGMENT

1. By this application, the applicant – original respondent –husband seeks to challenge the judgment and order dated 25.09.2024 passed in Criminal Misc. Application No. 205 of 2022 by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Surendranagar, whereby, the learned Judge partly allowed the said application and enhanced the maintenance amount to the applicants therein – respondent Nos. 2 and 3 herein from Rs.2,500/- to Rs.4,500/- per month to the respondent No. 2 and from Rs.4,000/- to Rs.7,000/- per month to the respondent No. 3 herein and thereby, enhancing the total maintenance amount from Rs.6,500/- to Rs.14,000/- per month to the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 herein.

2. Rule. Learned advocates for the respective respondents waive service.

3. Considering the controversy involved in the matter, with the consent of the learned advocates for the respective parties, the matter is heard finally today.

4. Heard, the learned advocates for the respective parties.

4.1 The learned advocate for the applicant – husband would submit that the applicant – husband has responsibility of his ailing mother also, who is aged about 76 years. It is further submitted that even as per the Income Tax Returns, the income of the applicant – husband is assessed at Rs.25,900/- per month, and on account of such an enhancement of maintenance, more than 50%

of the monthly earnings goes towards paying maintenance only. It is submitted that the learned Judge has enhanced the amount merely on the count that five years have elapsed after the maintenance order was passed and considering the rate of inflation, he enhanced the maintenance amount, as aforesaid, which is quite exorbitant and accordingly, it is prayed that this application may be allowed by setting aside the impugned order herein.

5. Ex adverso, the learned advocate for the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 – original applicants while supporting the impugned judgment and order of the learned Family Court, submitted that when the earlier order of maintenance was passed, the respondent No. 2 – wife was earning, however, it is not the case and now, she is jobless and is not earning. Moreover, it is submitted that as against that, the income of the husband i.e. the applicant herein has increased to Rs.25,900/- per month, by the passage of time, which earlier was Rs.20,000/- per month. Accordingly, in the submission of the learned advocate for the respondent Nos. 2 and 3, as there is no palpable error in the impugned order granting maintenance, this Court, in the revision jurisdiction, may not interfere with the order impugned herein being just and proper and accordingly, it is requested to reject this application.

6. Heard, the learned advocates for the respective parties and perused the material available on record.

6.1 At the outset, it is required to be noted that the scope of revision is very limited and cannot be exercised in routine manner. The Apex Court in the case of Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander and Anr. , reported in (2012) 9 SCC 460 , has held that it is only with a view to correct the manifest error, such jurisdiction should be invoked. Revisional Jurisdiction can be invoked where the decisions under challenge are grossly erroneous, there is no compliance with the provisions of law, the finding recorded is based on no evidence, material evidence is ignored or judicial discretion is exercised arbitrarily or perversely.

6.2 On the touchstone of the aforesaid principles, if the case on hand is tested, earlier, by the judgment and order dated 05.07.2019 passed in Criminal Misc. Application No. 418 of 2018 filed under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (the Code) by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Surendranagar, the learned Judge granted ma