Maintenance award must be grounded in solid evidence; arbitrary enhancement without basis is invalid.

JUDGMENT :

Ajay Mohan Goel, J.

By way of this petition, the petitioner has challenged the judgment passed by learned Appellate Court dated 05. 01.2024, in terms whereof, the maintenance awarded by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mandi, in proceedings initiated under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, stand enhanced from Rs.2500/- each in favour of the wife and daughter to Rs. 4,000/- to the wife and Rs.3,000/- to the daughter.

2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has taken the Court through the judgment passed by the learned Appellate Court and submitted that the same is perverse for the reason that the amount of maintenance has been arbitrarily enhanced by the learned Appellate Court without any basis. She referred to para-30 of the judgment to justify her contention.

3. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent has submitted that in the light of the fact that the petitioner is earning more than Rs.35,000/- per month as he is involved in the work of accounts and he misled the learned Courts below by stating that he was just a MNREGA worker, therefore, no illegality has been committed by the learned Appellate Court by enhancing the maintenance amount.

4. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have also carefully gone through the order passed by learned Trial Court as well as learned Appellate Court.

5. A perusal of the order passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate demonstrates that therein, the learned Judge was pleased to award maintenance of Rs.2500/- each in favour of the wife and daughter besides other reliefs granted to them.

6. Now, incidentally this order was not assailed by the husband but was assailed by the wife and the daughter. In the appeal preferred by them, the amount of maintenance was enhanced to Rs. 4,000/- in favour of the wife and Rs.3,000/- in favour of the daughter. The reason which has been assigned in the impugned judgment for the enhancement of the maintenance amount is that as per the complaint-wife, the husband was hale and hearty and was earning Rs.35,000/- per month from all sources whereas as per the respondent-husband, he was an unemployed person, earning only Rs.4000/- per month from MNREGA scheme and therefore, the Court was of the considered opinion that the respondent being a skilled employee “might have been earning Rs.15,000/- per month”.

7. This Court is of the considered view that award of maintenance cannot be based on conjectures and surmises and whenever any amount is awarded as maintenance, there has to a solid foundation for the order as to why this amount is granted to a party as maintenance. In the impugned judgment, the figure of Rs.15,000/- as the monthly earning of the present petitioner has been arbitrarily arrived at by learned Appellate Court without any foundation therefor in the case.

8. Otherwise also, the impugned judgment is not sustainable in the eyes of law for the reason that in terms of the law declared by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Rajnesh vs. Neha and another, (2021) 2 Supreme Court Cases 324, for determining the quantum of maintenance payable to an applicant, the Court has to look into the criteria enumerated in part B-3 of the said judgment which has been totally ignored by learned Appellate Court in the present case.

9. Therefore, in light of the above discussion, this petition is allowed and the judgment passed by learned Appellate Court dated 05.01.2024 is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the learned Appellate Court to decide the appeal in light of the law declared by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajnesh vs. Neha and another (supra). 

Parties through Counsel are directed to appear before learned Appellate Court 17.11.2025. Learned Appellate Court to decide the appeal, in accordance with law, expeditiously and preferably by 31st of December, 2025. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any also stand disposed of accordingly.