Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(HP) 1011

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Rakesh Kainthla, JJ.
Surender - Petitioner
Versus
Kusma & others - Respondents
Cr. Revision (FC) No. 1 of 2025
Decided On : 09-01-2025

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. G.R. Palsra, Advocate.

A husband’s legal obligation to maintain his wife and children must be fulfilled despite claims of financial hardship, unless convincingly demonstrated otherwise.

Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure - Section 125 - Maintenance - Petition for enhancement of maintenance allowed by Family Court due to increase in living costs and needs of dependents - Previous maintenance orders deemed insufficient as the respondent's income was found to have increased over time - Court recognized the moral obligation of the husband to maintain family despite his assertions of being financially constrained - No evidence presented to support the claim of inability to work or support dependents. (Paras 1, 23)

(B) Revisional Jurisdiction - Scope of review is limited, focusing on errors of law or jurisdiction — Courts cannot reappreciate evidence unless grossly erroneous conclusions are drawn; prior maintenance rulings upheld based on substantial evidence of lifestyle changes and income potential of the respondent. (Paras 9-12, 14, 15, 24)

Facts of the case:
The applicants sought an increase in maintenance due to inflation and growing needs since the last order in 2016, asserting changes in the financial capacity of the respondent. The respondent disputed the need for enhanced maintenance citing personal circumstances but did not substantiate claims.

Findings of Court:
The court affirmed the prior order of maintenance based on established understanding of legal responsibilities, recognizing the respondent's potential earnings and the applicants' need.

Issues: The main issues were whether the previous maintenance was adequate in light of the changing economic conditions and the respondent's capacity to pay.

Ratio Decidendi: The court upheld that despite the respondent's assertions of financial hardship, he bore the onus of proving inability to provide maintenance, which he failed to establish, particularly given his status as an able-bodied individual.

Result: Petition dismissed.

Table of Content
1. background and procedural history of the case. (Para 1)
2. need for enhanced maintenance due to increased living costs. (Para 2 , 5)
3. court considers various factors before deciding maintenance. (Para 3 , 4 , 7 , 8 , 22)
4. arguments against respondent's ability to pay maintenance. (Para 6 , 19 , 20)
5. legal framework on maintenance obligations post-separation. (Para 9 , 10 , 12 , 13 , 21 , 23)
6. court analysis of respondent's income capability and responsibilities. (Para 14 , 18)
7. wife's efforts post-separation do not negate husband's obligation. (Para 15 , 16)
8. court upholds trial court's maintenance order. (Para 24 , 25)

JUDGMENT :

Rakesh Kainthla, J.

The present revision is directed against the order dated11.12.2024 passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Mandi, District Mandi (learned Trial Court), vide which the petition filed by the respondents (applicants before learned Trial Court) was allowed and the petitioner (respondent before learned Trial Court) was directed to pay monthly maintenance at the rate of Rs.2,500/- to present respondent No.1 and Rs.2,000/- each to the present respondents No. 2, 3 and 5 from the date of filing of the application. (Parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the same manner as they were arrayed before the learned Trial Court for convenience).

2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present petition are that the applicants filed a petition under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before learned Judicial Magistrate First Class (Court No.4), Mandi, District Mandi, seeking maintenance from the respondent. This petition was allowed on 19.01.2016. Maintenance of Rs.1500/- per month was awarded to applicant No.1, maintenance of Rs.1000/- per month was awarded to applicant No.2 and maintenance of Rs.500/- per month each was awarded to applicants No. 3 to 5. It was asserted that the prices of the daily items had increased. Applicants No. 2 to 5 were studying in higher classes and the monthly maintenance fixed in the year 2016 became insufÏcient to maintain the applicants. The income of the respondent had also increased to Rs.40,000/- since 2013, the date of filing of the original petition under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. Therefore, it was prayed that the maintenance be enhanced to Rs.25000/- in equal shares.

3. The respondent opposed the petition by asserting that he was a poor person. Applicant No.4 has been residing with him since April 2022. Applicant No.2 had completed her education. Applicant No.1 was working as a labourer, and she was also selling milk. Her monthly income from all sources was more than Rs.20,000/-. The respondent was unemployed and he had no source of income. Hence, he prayed that the present petition be dismissed.

4. Rejoinder denying the contents of the reply and afÏrming those of the petition was filed.

5. The evidence was led before the learned Trial Court. The learned Trial Court held that the respondent admitted in his cross- examination that the prices of essential goods had significantly increased since 2013. Applicants No.2, 3 and 5 had grown up and their needs had increased. The respondent was an able-bodied person and if the Notification issued by the State Government fixing the minimum wages was considered, the respondent could earn a minimum salary of Rs.12,000/- per month. Therefore, the application was partly allowed and the monthly maintenance mentioned above was awarded to the applicants.

6. Being aggrieved from the order passed by the learned Trial Court, the petitioner has filed the present petition asserting that the learned Trial Court passed the order based on surmises and conjectures. Applicant No.1 admitted that she had 4-5 cows with her and she used to sell milk. She also admitted that she was working under MGNREGA and that her daughter Anjali had passed the 10+2 examination. She also stated that the respondent used to earn Rs.4,000/- to Rs.5,000/- per month and she was residing in a newly constructed house.