The enhancement of maintenance must ensure a spouse can sustain a dignified lifestyle, reflecting their status in marriage.

ORDER

This revision petition is filed against the order dated

31.03.2021 in MC No.27/2020 on the files of the Family Court, Vatakara. The respondent wife filed an application under Section 127 Cr.P.C for enhancement of maintenance. Originally, the Family Court granted maintenance to the respondent @ Rs.1,000/-, as per the order in MC 291/2008. Subsequently, the present petition was filed for the enhancement of the maintenance amount. As per the impugned order, the Family Court enhanced the maintenance to the respondent @ Rs.3,000/-. Aggrieved by the same, this revision is filed.

2. Heard.

3. This Court perused the impugned order. The petitioner is aggrieved by the enhancement of maintenance ordered by the Family Court. The Family Court, after considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, enhanced the maintenance to Rs.3,000/-. It is only a slight enhancement. I see absolutely no reason to interfere with the same. The contention of the petitioner is that he has no means, will not stand as per the dictum laid down by the Apex Court in Shamima Farooqui v. Shahid Khan [ 2015 (2) KHC SN 35 ]. It will be better to extract the relevant paragraph of the judgment:

“15. The High Court, without indicating any reason, has reduced the monthly maintenance allowance to Rs.2,000/-. In today's world, it is extremely difÏcult to conceive that a woman of her status would be in a position to manage within Rs.2,000/- per month. It can never be forgotten that the inherent and fundamental principle behind S.125 CrPC is for amelioration of the financial state of affairs as well as mental agony and anguish that woman suffers when she is compelled to leave her matrimonial home. The statute commands there has to be some acceptable arrangements so that she can sustain herself. The principle of sustenance gets more heightened when the children are with her. Be it clarified that sustenance does not mean and can never allow to mean a mere survival. A woman, who is constrained to leave the marital home, should not be allowed to feel that she has fallen from grace and move hither and thither arranging for sustenance. As per law, she is entitled to lead a life in the similar manner as she would have lived in the house of her husband. And that is where the status and strata of the husband comes into play and that is where the legal obligation of the husband becomes a prominent one. As long as the wife is held entitled to grant of maintenance within the parameters of S.125 CrPC, it has to be adequate so that she can live with dignity as she would have lived in her matrimonial home. She cannot be compelled to become a destitute or a beggar. There can be no shadow of doubt that an order under S.125 CrPC can be passed if a person despite having sufÏcient means neglects or refuses to maintain the wife. Sometimes, a plea is advanced by the husband that he does not have the means to pay, for he does not have a job or his business is not doing well. These are only bald excuses and, in fact, they have no acceptability in law. If the husband is healthy, able bodied and is in a position to support himself, he is under the legal obligation to support his wife, for wife's right to receive maintenance under S.125 CrPC, unless disqualified, is an absolute right. While determining the quantum of maintenance, this Court in Jabsir Kaur Sehgal v. District Judge Dehradun and Others , 1997 KHC 554 , has held as follows:

"The Court has to consider the status of the parties, their respective needs, the capacity of the husband to pay having regard to his reasonable expenses for his own maintenance and of those he is obliged under the law and statutory but involuntary payments or deductions. The amount of maintenance fixed for the wife should be such as she can live in reasonable comfort cons