High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru Partly Allows Husband's Revision Petition Against Maintenance Order Under Section 125 Cr.P.C. — Maintenance Reduced from Rs. 12,000 to Rs. 8,000 per Month for Wife and Child. The court held that maintenance quantum must be based on the husband's actual income and the claimants' needs, not on equalization of income.

High Court: Karnataka High Court Bench: BENGALURU In Favour of Accused
  • 60
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The petitioner, Sri Y.G. Rajesh, filed a revision petition under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act, 1984, challenging the order dated 16.08.2023 passed by the I Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Mysuru, in Crl.Misc.No.329/2020. The Family Court had partly allowed the petition filed by the respondents (wife and minor daughter) under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.), granting maintenance of Rs. 12,000 per month (Rs. 8,000 for the wife and Rs. 4,000 for the child). The husband contended that the amount was excessive given his income of Rs. 15,000 per month as a driver. The relationship between the parties as husband, wife, and daughter was not disputed. The wife alleged ill-treatment and cruelty, forcing her to live separately. The High Court, after considering the submissions, held that maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. is intended to prevent vagrancy and destitution, not to equalize income. The court noted that the wife is capable of earning and that the husband's income is limited. Consequently, the court reduced the total maintenance to Rs. 8,000 per month (Rs. 5,000 for the wife and Rs. 3,000 for the child) from the date of the petition, with arrears to be paid within three months. The revision petition was partly allowed.

Headnote

A) Family Law - Maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. - Quantum of Maintenance - The husband challenged the order granting Rs. 12,000 per month to wife and child as excessive. The court held that maintenance is to prevent vagrancy and must be based on the husband's income and the claimants' needs. Considering the husband's income of Rs. 15,000 per month and the wife's earning capacity, the court reduced the maintenance to Rs. 8,000 per month (Rs. 5,000 for wife and Rs. 3,000 for child) from the date of petition. (Paras 1-6)

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the maintenance amount of Rs. 12,000 per month granted to the wife and child under Section 125 Cr.P.C. is excessive and requires reduction.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The revision petition is partly allowed. The order dated 16.08.2023 in Crl.Misc.No.329/2020 is modified. The petitioner is directed to pay maintenance of Rs. 5,000 per month to the wife and Rs. 3,000 per month to the child, totaling Rs. 8,000 per month, from the date of petition. Arrears to be paid within three months.

Law Points

  • Maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. is to prevent vagrancy and destitution
  • not to equalize income
  • quantum must be based on the husband's actual income and needs of the claimants
  • revision under Section 19(4) of Family Courts Act
  • 1984 is limited to jurisdictional error or perversity.
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2024 LawText (KAR) (02) 10

RPFC No. 233 of 2023

2024-02-08

Hanchate Sanjeevkumar

Sri. Vishwanath Kanavi for petitioner, Sri. Narasimha Murthy K for respondents

Sri. Y. G. Rajesh

Smt. M Ramya and Kshamaya (minor daughter represented by mother)

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Revision petition under Section 19(4) of Family Courts Act, 1984 against maintenance order under Section 125 Cr.P.C.

Remedy Sought

Reduction of maintenance amount granted to wife and child

Filing Reason

Husband challenged the maintenance order as excessive

Previous Decisions

Family Court partly allowed the maintenance petition granting Rs. 12,000 per month (Rs. 8,000 for wife and Rs. 4,000 for child) on 16.08.2023 in Crl.Misc.No.329/2020

Issues

Whether the maintenance amount of Rs. 12,000 per month granted to the wife and child under Section 125 Cr.P.C. is excessive and requires reduction.

Submissions/Arguments

Petitioner/husband argued that the maintenance of Rs. 12,000 per month is excessive as his income is only Rs. 15,000 per month as a driver. Respondents/wife and child argued that the maintenance is just and proper considering the needs of the wife and child.

Ratio Decidendi

Maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. is to prevent vagrancy and destitution, not to equalize income. The quantum must be based on the husband's actual income and the needs of the claimants. In this case, considering the husband's income of Rs. 15,000 per month and the wife's earning capacity, the maintenance was reduced to Rs. 8,000 per month.

Judgment Excerpts

The petition is filed by the husband challenging the order dated 16.08.2023 passed by I Addl. Prl. Judge. Family Court, Mysuru, in Crl.Misc.No.329/2020 on the ground that the maintenance amount granted to the wife and child is excessive one. The Family Court has granted maintenance of Rs.12,000/- per month to the respondents.

Procedural History

The respondents filed a petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. in Crl.Misc.No.329/2020 before the I Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Mysuru, which was partly allowed on 16.08.2023 granting maintenance of Rs. 12,000 per month. The husband filed a revision petition under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 before the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru, which was heard and disposed of on 08.02.2024.

Acts & Sections

  • Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.): 125
  • Family Courts Act, 1984: 19(4)
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Dismisses Revision Against Order Refusing to Strike Out Defence in Suit for Possession and Mesne Profits — Held That Denial of Title by Tenant Without Supporting Evidence Does Not Attract Striking Out of Defence Under Order 15A CP...
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Dismisses Arbitration Application in Insurance Dispute Due to Absence of Arbitration Agreement. No Policy Executed, Risk Cover Note Did Not Incorporate Arbitration Clause.