Wife’s Needs To Be Balanced Not Only With Husband’s Income But Also With Her Own Earning Prospects: Gujarat High Court Reduces Maintenance Amount

The High Court was considering an application filed by a husband challenging the judgment of the Family Court whereby the Judge enhanced the total maintenance amount from Rs 6,500 to Rs 14,000.

The Single Bench of Justice P. M. Raval held, “The social objective behind the provision for grant of maintenance, if considered on the admitted facts as discussed in this case, it would go to disclose the wife’s need and requirement to be balanced not only with the income and liability of the husband but also has to be considered on the backdrop of the education and prospect of the wife to earn, therefore, maintenance should allow the wife to maintain a reasonable standard of living but should not be excessive or encourage idleness.”

Advocate Jaivik Uday Bhatt represented the Petitioner, while Advocate AB Gateshaniya represented the Respondent.

Arguments

It was the applicant’s case that he has the responsibility towards his 76-year-old ailing mother. It was further submitted that even as per the Income Tax Returns, the income of the applicant was assessed at Rs 25,900 per month, and on account of such an enhancement of maintenance, more than 50% of the monthly earnings would go towards paying maintenance only.

It was the wife’s case that when the earlier order of maintenance was passed, she was earning; however, she became jobless thereafter and was not earning.

Reasoning

On a perusal of the facts of the case, the Bench noted that the wife had studied upto M.Com. And the same could be one of the aspects while fixing the amount of maintenance, though she was not earning. The Bench was of the view that the amount of permanent alimony awarded to the wife must be befitting the status of the parties and the capacity of the spouse to pay maintenance. “Maintenance is always dependent on the factual situation of the case and the Court would be justified in moulding the claim for maintenance passed on various factors”, it added.

Coming to the facts of the case, the Bench noted that the wife holds M. Com. degree and though the husband's income has increased from Rs 20,000 per month to Rs 25,900 per month, the enhanced amount of maintenance is more than double from what was earlier granted to the wife and the child.

“It is true that considering the rate of inflation, the amount ought to have been enhanced, but merely considering the fact that now wife is not earning and that the inflation rate has gone up and that, five years have elapsed after the earlier maintenance order, the trial Court has doubled the amount of maintenance, however, without giving any palpable reasons therefor and/or without giving any justification for coming to such a conclusion and doubling the amount of maintenance”, it held.

The Bench also took note of the fact that it had not come on record, more particularly, at the instance of the respondents, that the applicant was earning a handsome amount and/or he was enjoying a luxurious life and spending extravagantly on himself. Considering the scope of revisional jurisdiction and in order to strike a balance in view of the admitted facts of the case, the Court reduced the quantum of maintenance awarded by the Family Court.

Allowing the application in part, the Bench ordered, “...enhanced amount of total maintenance granted to the respondent No. 2 herein is reduced to Rs.5,500/- from Rs.6,500/- per month and to respondent No. 3 herein, from Rs.7,500/- to Rs.6,500/- per month, thereby, granting total amount of maintenance to the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 herein of Rs.12,000/- per month.”

Cause Title: A v. State of Gujarat & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2026:GUJHC:16305)

Appearance

Petitioner: Advocates Jaivik Uday Bhatt, Adnirrudhsinh Kushwaha

Respondent: Advocates AB Gateshaniya, Addl. Public Prosecutor Rohan Shah

Click here to read/download Order