Back
2025 Supreme(Raj) 1295
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
MANOJ KUMAR GARG, J.
Kesaram, S/o. Shri Bhiya Ram & Ors. - Petitioners
Versus
Vimla, W/o. Shri Kesaram & Ors. - Respondents
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 411 of 2024 Connected With S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 105 of 2024
Decided On : 07-05-2025
For the Petitioner: Mr. Salman Agha.
For the Respondent: Mr. Rakesh Arora with Mr. Manish Rajpurohit.
A husband has a legal obligation to maintain his wife and minor children, and maintenance amounts should reflect the husband's financial capacity.
Headnote:
(A) Domestic Violence Act, 2005 - Section 12 - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 127 - Maintenance - The appellate court enhanced maintenance from Rs.6,000/- to Rs.15,000/- per month for the wife and minor daughter, effective from the date of application, considering the husband's income and legal obligation to maintain his family. (Paras 1, 4, 5)
(B) Legal Obligation - The court emphasized that it is the legal duty of a husband to maintain his wife and minor children, which is a fundamental principle in family law. (Paras 6, 7)
Facts of the case:
The husband challenged the appellate court's order enhancing maintenance for his wife and minor daughter, arguing that the decision was made without proper consideration of his financial obligations towards his parents and siblings. The wife sought an increase in maintenance based on the husband's salary and her lack of income.
Findings of Court:
The court upheld the appellate court's decision to enhance maintenance but modified the effective date to reflect the original maintenance amount until the appellate order.
Issues: The main issues were whether the appellate court's enhancement of maintenance was justified and the appropriate effective date for the maintenance award.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the husband's legal obligation to maintain his family justified the maintenance amount awarded, and the appellate court's decision was not arbitrary but based on the husband's financial capacity.
Result: The impugned appellate order stands modified.
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points summarized with appropriate references:
-
The case concerns a dispute over maintenance obligations between a husband and his wife and minor daughter, with the appellate court ordering an increase in maintenance payments due to the husband's income and legal duty to support his family (!) (!) .
-
The husband, a government teacher earning Rs. 65,100 per month, challenged the appellate court's decision, arguing that the order was made without proper consideration of his financial obligations towards his parents and siblings, and that the enhancement was arbitrary (!) (!) .
-
The wife had previously been awarded maintenance of Rs. 4,000 per month under the Domestic Violence Act, which was later increased to Rs. 6,000 per month by the Gram Nyayalaya, and subsequently to Rs. 15,000 per month by the appellate court (!) .
-
The court upheld the appellate court's decision to enhance maintenance but modified the effective date of the order. The court determined that the wife and minor daughter should receive Rs. 6,000 per month from the date of the application (08.09.2016) until the appellate order date (12.12.2023), and Rs. 15,000 per month thereafter (!) .
-
The court emphasized the husband's legal obligation to support his wife and minor children, considering his income and the needs of his family, and found that the appellate court's order was justified based on these principles (!) (!) .
-
The husband was ordered to pay any arrears due within two months, and the appellate order was modified accordingly. Both revision petitions were decided based on these findings (!) (!) .
-
The record of the Family Court was to be sent back immediately, and stay applications, if any, were also disposed of as part of the decision (!) .
Please let me know if you need further analysis or specific legal advice based on this document.
ORDER :
Both the revision petitions have arisen out of the same order dated 12.12.2023, passed by learned Additional Session Judge, Jalore in Cr. Appeal No.3/2023 whereby the learned appellate court allowed the appeal filed by the wife and while setting aside the order dated 05.05.2022, passed by the Gram Nyayalaya, Sanchore, directed the husband to pay maintenance of Rs.15,000/- p.m. to the wife & minor daughter from the date of application i.e. 08.09.2016 and therefore, both the revisions are being decided by this common order.
Revision No.411/2024 has been filed on behalf of husband against the award of maintenance to the wife & minor daughter and revision No.105/2024 has been filed on behalf of the wife and minor daughter seeking enhancement of maintenance amount.
Mr. Salman Agha, learned counsel for the husband submits that initially, the wife had filed an application under Section 12 of Domvestic Violence Act, which was allowed by the Gram Nayalaya, Sanchore vide order dated 04.07.2013 and the wife was awarded maintenance of Rs.4,000/- per month. Thereafter, in the year 2016, wife again filed an application under Section 127 Cr.P.C., which was treated under Section 25 of DV Act, for enhancement of the maintenance. The said application was allowed by the Gram Nayalaya vide order dated 05.05.2022 directing the husband to pay enhanced maintenance of Rs.6,000/- p.m. for the wife from the date of filing of the application i.e. 08.09.2016. Against the order dated 05.05.2022, the wife fled an appeal before the appellate court for enhancement of the maintenance and the said appeal was allowed by the appellate court vide impugned order dated 12.12.2023 and while setting aside the order dated 05.05.2022, the maintenance amount of the wife was enhanced from Rs.6,000/- to Rs.15,000/- per month from the date of application i.e. 08.09.2016.
It is argued by the counsel for the husband that the learned appellate court while passing the impugned order has not considered the factual aspect of the case and passed the order based on whims and fancies. Though, the husband is a government teacher, but he has the burden to maintain his parents and siblings. But, the learned appellate court without assigning any cogent reason has enhanced the maintenance, in a mechanical manner, from Rs.6,000/- to Rs.15,000/- per month. Therefore, it is prayed that the impugned order may be set aside, or in the alternative, the maintenance amount may be reduced appropriately.
Mr. Rakesh Arora, appearing for the wife & minor daughter submits that the husband is a government teacher, drawing monthly salary of Rs.65,100/-, whereas, the wife does not have any source of income to maintain herself and her growing minor daughter. Therefore, it is prayed that looking to the financial status of the husband as well as present price index as well as expenses incurred in the upbringing of the minor daughter, the maintenance awarded by the learned appellate Court may be enhanced adequately.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order as well as carefully gone through the material available on record.
It is not in dispute that the husband is a government teacher, drawing a handsome monthly salary of Rs.65,100/-. The appellate court vide impugned order awarded maintenance of Rs.15,000/- per month from the date of filing of the application i.e. 08.09.2016. Being husband and father, it is the legal obligation to maintain her legally wedded wife and minor daughter. Thus, taking into consideration the aforesaid facts, this Court is of the opinion that the maintenance awarded by the appellate Court to the wife and minor daughter cannot be said to be on the lower side. However, this Court is of the view that the learned appellate court has committed error in awarded the maintenance to the wife and minor daughter from the date of filing of the application i.e. 08.09.2016. Hence, it is ordered that wife and minor daughter shall be entitled to get maintenance of Rs.6
