Maintenance Cannot Be Doubled Without Cogent Reasons, Wife's Education And Earning Capacity Relevant Factors: Gujarat High Court

"Maintenance should allow the wife to maintain a reasonable standard of living but should not be excessive or encourage idleness", Gujarat High Court has partially allowed a husband's revision application and reduced the enhanced maintenance granted by the Family Court, holding that doubling of maintenance merely on grounds of inflation and passage of time without recording cogent reasons is unsustainable.

Justice P. M. Raval, while modifying the Family Court's order that had enhanced maintenance from Rs. 6,500 to Rs. 14,000 per month, reduced the total maintenance to Rs. 12,000 per month, observing that the wife's educational qualification of M. Com. and her prospect to earn are relevant factors while fixing maintenance quantum.

Background of the Case

The husband challenged the order of the Principal Judge, Family Court, Surendranagar which had enhanced maintenance in favour of his wife and child. Originally, maintenance of Rs. 6,500 per month was granted under Section 125 CrPC in 2019. The wife and child subsequently filed an application under Section 127 CrPC seeking enhancement, which the Family Court partly allowed in September 2024, more than doubling the maintenance to Rs. 14,000 per month.

Legal Issues

The primary question was whether the Family Court was justified in doubling the maintenance amount from Rs. 6,500 to Rs. 14,000 per month merely on grounds that five years had elapsed since the original order, inflation had increased, and the wife was now jobless, without recording any cogent or palpable reasons for such enhancement.

Court's Observations and Judgment

"Revisional Jurisdiction can be invoked where the decisions under challenge are grossly erroneous, there is no compliance with the provisions of law, the finding recorded is based on no evidence, material evidence is ignored or judicial discretion is exercised arbitrarily or perversely"

The Court noted that the husband's income had increased from Rs. 20,000 to Rs. 25,900 per month. The wife claimed she was now jobless, though she had been earning when the original maintenance order was passed. The husband alleged the wife was earning Rs. 6,000 per month but failed to prove this assertion, while the wife stated on affidavit that she was unemployed.

"The amount of permanent alimony awarded to the wife must be befitting the status of the parties and the capacity of spouse to pay maintenance. Maintenance is always dependent on the factual situation of the case"

Relying upon the Supreme Court's decision in Smt. Jasbir Kaur Sehgal v. District Judge, Dehradun, the Court observed that while determining maintenance, the Court must consider the status of parties, their respective needs, the capacity of the husband to pay having regard to his reasonable expenses for his own maintenance and those he is obliged to maintain under law.

"The amount of maintenance fixed for the wife should be such as she can live in reasonable comfort considering her status and the mode of life she was used to when she lived with her husband. At the same time, the amount so fixed cannot be excessive or extortionate"

The Court found that the Family Court had doubled the maintenance merely considering that the wife was not earning, inflation had increased, and five years had elapsed, without giving any palpable reasons or justification for such a conclusion.

"It would also be difficult to survive by the husband by paying such an enhanced more than double maintenance amount"

The Court took into consideration that the husband also had the responsibility of maintaining his ailing 76-year-old mother. Further, there was no material on record to suggest that the husband was earning handsomely or living a luxurious life or spending extravagantly on himself.

"The social objective behind the provision for grant of maintenance has to be considered on the backdrop of the education and prospect of the wife to earn"

Noting that the wife was M. Com. educated, the Court held that her educational qualification and prospect to earn is a relevant factor while fixing maintenance, even though she claimed to be currently unemployed.

The Court modified the impugned order and reduced the maintenance to the wife from Rs. 4,500 to Rs. 5,500 per month and to the child from Rs. 7,000 to Rs. 6,500 per month, thereby fixing total maintenance at Rs. 12,000 per month instead of Rs. 14,000 per month. The reduced maintenance was directed to be paid from the date of the enhancement application.

Date of Decision: 3rd March, 2026