IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 09.04.2026 MANJEET KUMAR PETITIONER VERSUS LATA DEVI AND ANOTHER RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL Present: Mr. Anil Kumar Sharma, Advocate and Mr. Vikash Yadav, Advocate for the petitioner.

***

Shalini Singh Nagpal, J.

1. Order dated 01.02.2025 of learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court at Rewari awarding ₹7,300/- per month to the respondents from the date of application besides litigation expenses of ₹10,000/- has been assailed in this revision petition.

2. The only argument addressed by learned counsel for the petitioner is that the maintenance assessed for the wife and minor child was much on the higher side, considering income of the petitioner, who was a petty labourer. He submits that disputes arose between the petitioner and respondent No.1 for the reason that she was more educated, a graduate while petitioner was 10+2. Respondent No.1 left the matrimonial home without any reason. The order was based on one-sided evidence and petitioner did not get opportunity to lead evidence. Therefore, impugned order deserved to be set aside.

3. Relationship of the parties is not in dispute. Respondent No.1 is the wife and respondent No.2 is the minor daughter of the petitioner. Record shows that petitioner initially put in appearance before learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Rewari and also filed reply contesting the petition. After settlement of issues and closure of evidence of the wife, he examined himself but subsequently, failed to put in appearance.

4. Petitioner’s plea that the wife left the matrimonial home of her own accord, without sufficient cause has been elaborately dealt with by learned Family Court, Rewari, noticing the examination-in-chief and cross- examination of the wife, who asserted that she was subjected to severe beating just after two months of the marriage and was thrown out of the matrimonial home on 20.07.2018. It has been observed that the wife was subjected to acts of domestic violence during her stay in the matrimonial home and shunted out forcibly, which constituted a sufficient reason for residing separately. Evidence has been correctly appreciated to hold that there was sufficient proof of neglect and refusal on the part of the husband to maintain. This Court has no reason to differ.

5. It is no answer to a claim of maintenance to say that the wife is well educated and capable of maintaining herself. The husband cannot be absolved of his fundamental, moral and statutory duty to maintain his wife and child on the plea that the wife ought to maintain herself, being well educated. This is the settled position of law. There is nothing on record to show that the wife is earning. It is the sacrosanct duty of the husband to render financial support to his wife, who is unable to maintain herself. The obligation of the petitioner to maintain his child is absolute, continuous and non- negotiable. The husband having initially contested the petition, which he abandoned midway after leading evidence cannot be heard to say that he was not given an opportunity to lead evidence and the order was one sided.

6. There being no evidence on record to prove income of the husband, considering that he was able-bodied, his income was assessed by learned Family Court as a daily wager and a sum of ₹7,300/- was awarded to both the wife and the child to cater to their expenditure on food, clothing, residence, medical expenses, education etc. Learned Family Court, Rewari has drawn a careful and just balance between all relevant factors to determine maintenance allowance and the assessment made is not on the higher side. There is no gross illegality or patent defect in the order of learned Family Court, Rewari requiring interference in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction. Scope of interference in revisional jurisdiction is very limited and powers have to be exercised very sparingly, only where the decision under challenge