The Rajasthan High Court has declined to enhance a wife’s monthly maintenance despite the husband earning over Rs.1.5 lakh, holding that maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. is meant for reasonable support, not income-sharing. The ruling reinforces limits on maintenance claims, particularly in cases involving brief marriages.
The dispute arose from a marriage that broke down within 57 days. Following separation, the wife approached the Family Court at Sri Ganganagar seeking maintenance, which was fixed at Rs.8,000 per month. She later challenged this amount before the High Court, arguing that the husband’s government employment, professional standing, and high salary justified higher support.
The husband opposed the plea, maintaining that maintenance must be assessed on overall circumstances, including the short duration of the marriage and the wife’s own educational and professional background.
Justice Farjand Ali rejected the plea for enhancement, stressing that Courts cannot mechanically link maintenance to a spouse’s salary. The Court observed that “maintenance proceedings cannot be converted into a de facto claim for sharing of income or property,” clarifying that higher earnings do not automatically translate into higher maintenance. It noted that the wife was well-educated, professionally qualified, and had prior work experience, factors relevant in assessing the quantum of support.
The Court also attached significance to the marriage lasting barely 57 days, holding that while duration alone does not defeat a maintenance claim, it is relevant in judging dependency and lifestyle sharing. The Court further noted that the husband had consistently complied with the Family Court’s order by depositing maintenance regularly.
Finding no illegality or perversity in the Family Court’s reasoning, the High Court dismissed the revision petition and upheld the Rs.8,000 monthly maintenance.
Case Title: Ritu Khatri Vs. Navneet Khanna
Case No.: S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1083/2024
Coram: Hon'ble Justice Farjand Ali
Advocate for Petitioner: Adv. Aakash Kukkar
Advocate for Respondent: Adv. Navneet Khanna
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
