Gujarat High Court Says Maintenance to Wife Must Be Reasonable, Not Encourage Idleness

The Gujarat High Court in MBD v. State of Gujarat & Ors clarified that maintenance awarded to an estranged wife should be reasonable and proportionate, and must not be so high that it encourages idleness. The Court reduced the maintenance amount earlier enhanced by a family court.

The judgement was delivered by Justice PM Raval while deciding a revision petition filed by a husband challenging a 2024 order of the family court. The earlier order had significantly increased the monthly maintenance payable to his wife and child.

“Maintenance should allow the wife to maintain a reasonable standard of living but should not be excessive or encourage idleness. 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,” the Court observed.

The dispute originated from a July 2019 order passed under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. At that time, the family court directed the husband to pay ₹2,500 per month to the wife and ₹4,000 per month to their child, making the total monthly maintenance ₹6,500.

Later, the wife and child filed an application under Section 127 CrPC seeking enhancement of the maintenance. They argued that circumstances had changed and that the cost of living had increased significantly since the earlier order.

In September 2024, the family court partly accepted the request and raised the maintenance to ₹4,500 per month for the wife and ₹7,000 per month for the child. This increased the total monthly amount from ₹6,500 to ₹14,000.

The husband challenged this decision before the High Court. He stated that his monthly income was approximately ₹25,900 according to his income tax records. He also pointed out that he was responsible for taking care of his 76-year-old mother.

According to him, the revised maintenance amount required him to pay more than half of his monthly income, which was financially burdensome.

The wife and child opposed the plea and argued that the wife was currently unemployed. They also highlighted that the husband’s income had increased compared to the time when the original maintenance order was passed.

The High Court noted that the earlier order had considered the wife’s income. However, during the later proceedings she had filed an affidavit stating that she was not employed, and the husband failed to produce evidence to contradict this claim.

The Court also observed that the wife held a Master of Commerce degree, which could not be ignored while evaluating the issue of maintenance.

However, the High Court found that the family court had doubled the maintenance amount mainly because five years had passed and inflation had increased. The Court held that these factors alone could not justify such a substantial rise without proper reasoning.

“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,” the High Court said.

After examining the financial capacity of the husband, his responsibility towards his elderly mother, and the needs of the wife and child, the Court modified the earlier order.

The High Court reduced the maintenance payable to the wife to ₹5,500 per month and to the child to ₹6,500 per month. This brought the total monthly maintenance amount to ₹12,000.

The Court further directed that the revised amount would be payable from the date on which the application seeking enhancement of maintenance was filed.

Advocates Jaivik Uday Bhatt and Adnirrudhsinh Kushwaha appeared for the husband. Advocate AB Gateshaniya represented the wife and child, while Assistant Public Prosecutor Rohan Shah appeared for the State.