AHMEDABAD:\u00a0<\/em>In a recent decision, Honourable Mr.\u00a0Justice Hasmukh D. Suthar<\/strong>\u00a0of the\u00a0Gujarat High Court<\/strong>\u00a0dealt with a case where a husband challenged the\u00a0increase in <\/strong>maintenance<\/strong>\u00a0<\/a>granted to his wife, reflecting a wider trend where husbands struggle to get relief despite showing financial burden.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n The wife had approached the Family Court seeking enhancement of maintenance from \u20b95,000 to \u20b930,000 per month, alleging cruelty and that she was forced out of the matrimonial home. The Family Court increased the amount to \u20b915,000 per month<\/strong> after evaluating the evidence. <\/p>\n\n\n\n The husband challenged this before the High Court, arguing that his income was limited<\/strong> and he had multiple responsibilities<\/strong> like supporting parents, rent, and loans<\/strong>. He also claimed that his wife was earning around \u20b915,000 per month through tailoring but had hidden this fact. He further alleged \u201cfalse and exaggerated allegations against the applicant just a view to get the handsome amount from the applicant and living her luxury life\u201d. <\/p>\n\n\n\n However, the wife maintained that she could not sustain herself independently, and the Court accepted her position based on settled legal principles<\/strong>. <\/p>\n\n\n\n The Court reiterated: <\/p>\n\n\n\n “Inability to maintain herself is the pre-condition for grant of maintenance to the wife. The wife must positively aver and prove that she is unable to maintain herself, in addition to the fact that her husband has sufficient means to maintain her and that he has neglected to maintain her.”<\/em><\/strong> <\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n The Court clarified that even if the wife is earning, it may still not be sufficient grounds to deny maintenance, as the expectation is to maintain a standard of living similar to that during the marriage<\/strong>. At the same time, this position places a continuing and strict financial burden on the husband, as the judgment reiterates that he \u201ccannot escape from his liability to maintain his wife or children because it is the legal and ethical duty of the husband to maintain them.\u201d<\/em><\/strong> <\/p>\n\n\n\n The reasoning was further supported on the ground of protecting \u201cmarginalized sections of society\u201d and ensuring \u201csocial justice\u201d, but in practical terms, it results in limited consideration of the husband\u2019s financial pressures and obligations. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Despite the husband highlighting his expenses and liabilities, the Court gave more weight to the increase in his income and upheld the enhancement of maintenance from \u20b95,000 to \u20b915,000 under Section 127 CrPC<\/strong>, treating the change in income as sufficient ground. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Ultimately, the revision application was dismissed<\/strong>, reinforcing that even where the husband raises financial constraints and disputes the wife\u2019s earning capacity, the scope for relief remains narrow under the existing legal framework. <\/p>\n\n\n\n <\/p>\n\n\n\n\n
Explanatory Table:\u00a0Laws &\u00a0Provisions\u00a0Involved\u00a0<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Law \/ Provision<\/strong> <\/td> Purpose<\/strong> <\/td> How Applied In This Case<\/strong> <\/td><\/tr> Section 125 CrPC<\/strong> <\/td> Provides basic maintenance to wife\/children if neglected <\/td> Earlier order granted \u20b95,000\/month maintenance <\/td><\/tr> Section 127 CrPC<\/strong> <\/td> Allows enhancement of maintenance on change in circumstances <\/td> Used to increase maintenance to \u20b915,000 due to rise in husband\u2019s income <\/td><\/tr> Domestic Violence Act<\/a> (Sec 18 – Monetary Relief)<\/strong>\u00a0<\/td> Provides independent monetary relief to aggrieved woman <\/td> Court noted DV Act relief is wider and separate from CrPC <\/td><\/tr> Sunita Kachwaha v. Anil Kachwaha (2014)<\/strong> <\/td> Wife earning is not a ground to deny maintenance <\/td> Relied upon to reject husband\u2019s argument on wife\u2019s income <\/td><\/tr> Bhuwan Mohan Singh v. Meena (2015)<\/strong> <\/td> Maintenance is a legal and moral duty of husband <\/td> Used to reinforce obligation of husband <\/td><\/tr> Bhagwan Dutt v. Kamla Devi (1975)<\/strong> <\/td> Maintenance can be modified with change in circumstances <\/td> Basis for enhancement under Section 127 CrPC <\/td><\/tr> Lalita Toppo v. State of Jharkhand (2019)<\/strong> <\/td> DV Act relief broader than Section 125 CrPC <\/td> Highlighted expanded scope of maintenance <\/td><\/tr> Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander (2012)<\/strong> <\/td> Scope of revisional jurisdiction is limited <\/td> Used to dismiss husband\u2019s revision plea <\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n Case Details <\/h3>\n\n\n\n
\n
\n
Key Takeaways<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
\n