Madhya Pradesh High Court: In a set of two cross-revision petitions filed by a wife under Section 19 (4) of the Family Court Act, 1984 (“FCA”) against the Family Court order whereby Rs 15,000 were awarded to the wife and Rs 7,000 and 12,000 to her two minor children respectively, while the Single Judge Bench of Gajendra Singh, J., dismissed the wife’s petition, holding that the argument for enhancement of the maintenance amount had no strength, it also dismissed the husband’s petition holding that the husband failed to fulfil his bounden duty to maintain his wife and child.
Background
The parties got married in 2018 and had two children together. The wife alleged that she gave birth to twins, and one of the born children was not in good health, and her mother-in-law was not in favour of the child being born with some ailment because his whole life would be a liability on the family, and denied his treatment. Thereafter, many acts of harassment and cruelty were committed against her. The wife and her children were sent to her maternal home in 2020 without any arrangement for maintenance, including the treatment for the ailing child.
In 2022, the wife filed a maintenance application seeking Rs 2 Lakhs per month for residence, medical treatment, transportation, etc., alleging harassment, neglect for maintenance, inability to maintain themselves, and sufficient means of the husband.
The Family Court noted that the wife had no income due to being the primary caretaker of her ill child, whereas the husband was the owner of a company, had a luxurious home, earned rental income, and his monthly income was between Rs 70,000 and Rs 80,000. Considering the educational and treatment expenses, maintenance was awarded partially.
Aggrieved, the wife filed the present petition seeking enhancement of the maintenance amount of Rs 34,000 to Rs 2 Lakhs per month to the wife and children. The husband too filed a revision petition against the awarded maintenance, claiming that he had to take care of his old and ailing parents, his small house was a gift, and he was from a humble background. He also contended that the wife did not disclose that she had been suffering from Thalassemia since her childhood, and due to her negligence, the child also contracted health issues.
Analysis
At the outset, the Court referred to Malkeet Singh Gill v. State of Chhattisgarh, (2022) 8 SCC 204, wherein it was held that the Court would not ordinarily interfere with the concurrent findings on pure questions of fact and review the evidence again unless there are exceptional circumstances justifying the departure from the normal practice.
The Court noted that disputes arose when one of the children was unwell. He required regular follow-up at the hospital due to chronic malnutrition, growth delay, and many other severe medical issues. Accordingly, the Court stated that the Family Court’s finding that, despite having an educational qualification of an MBA degree, the wife was unable to maintain herself and minor children due to being a full-time caretaker for the second child, was not perverse.
The Court remarked that the wife was facing the challenges against all odds, but the father, who should take on more challenges or at least support the wife, was shirking the liability for one reason or another.
“He is enjoying his personal life with expensive bikes.”
The Court further stated that this was not a case where a wife was claiming maintenance for her luxuries, but rather due to the circumstances that arose due to equal participation of the parties.
“It is the bounden duty of the husband to bear that duty with all sincerity and use all the resources, but the arguments advanced by the husband do not reflect his sincerity.”
The Court held that the husband’s revision petition had no substance and dismissed it with Rs 10,000 cost to be paid to the wife.
Considering the findings recorded by the Family Court in the impugned judgment in the light of evidence adduced by the parties and the amount of maintenance awarded, the Court also dismissed the wife’s petition, holding that the argument for enhancement of the maintenance amount had no strength.
Thus, the Court upheld the impugned order.
[A v. B, Criminal Revision No. 3235 of 2024, decided on 22-09-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the petitioner: Arpit Singh
For the respondent: Saloni Ohja
