Alagarsamy Vs Mangalasundari and Anr on 20 Nov 2025

Posted on January 3 by ShadesOfKnife

A single judge of Madras High Court at Madurai Bench held as follows,

From Para 16,

16. However, the learned Magistrate’s order is devoid of any specific reference to the section under which the warrant was issued. The expression “distress warrant” under Section 125(3) and “distraint warrant” under Section 128 have distinct connotations. The former is punitive, providing for imprisonment up to one month, per month of default, while the latter is civil-enforcement-oriented, meant to attach property to recover arrears. The confusion between the two renders the order susceptible to ambiguity.

From Para 20,

20. In the instant case, though the petitioner’s persistent default is established, the record does not show that the learned Magistrate considered or issued a bailable warrant before resorting to NBW. The impugned order also lacks any recorded satisfaction as to why the petitioner’s appearance could not be secured otherwise. That apart, the respondent wife herein had made the application for arrears of maintenance for a period of 22 months, which obviously would throw light on the fact that, the application has not been filed within a period of one year and hence, in an application filed beyond a period of one year, the learned Judicial Magistrate ought to have dealt with as mandated under Section 128 of Cr.P.C., 1973, and should have issued a distraint warrant and not a distress warrant.

From Para 22,

22. Hence, while the issuance of NBW without recording reasons is procedurally defective, the learned Magistrate’s power to enforce maintenance cannot be doubted. The proper course would have been to issue a bailable warrant first, or to issue a distraint warrant under Section 128 Cr.P.C., 1973, for attachment of property, before considering arrest.

From Para 28,

28. This case underscores the need for the learned Trial Courts to distinctly record under which provision warrants are issued, whether punitive under Section 125(3) or coercive under Section 128, and to follow the statutory sequence under Section 87 Cr.P.C., 1973, before resorting to non-bailable warrants.

Alagarsamy Vs Mangalasundari and Anr on 20 Nov 2025

Citations:

Other Sources:

Index of Maintenance judgments u/s 144 Cr.P.C. is here.

Jinesh CR Vs Aswathy PR on 19 Nov 2025

Posted on December 8, 2025 by ShadesOfKnife

A single judge of Kerala High Court held that the level or standard of prove for adultery is just preponderance of probability under Sec 144 BNSS case (being a civil proceeding) but not that of Proof beyond reasonable doubt which may be applicable in a criminal case.

From Para 5,

5. Section 125 of Cr.P.C. (Section 144 of BNSS) states that a husband with sufficient means is liable to provide maintenance to his wife who cannot support herself. However, the wife’s right to claim maintenance is not absolute. Sub-Section (4) of Section 125 (Section 144(4) of BNSS) clearly specifies that a wife living in adultery is not entitled to claim maintenance. The dictum laid down in all the decisions cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner and referenced earlier is that a single instance of adulterous conduct is not enough to disqualify a wife from claiming maintenance; rather, there must be evidence of continuous adulterous behaviour. In brief, there should be proof that the wife is habitually engaging in an adulterous life with the partner to invoke the provisions of subsection (4) of Section 125 of Cr.P.C. This legal principle is well settled. The key issue, however, is that when a husband defends proceedings under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. (Section 144 of BNSS) by claiming that the wife is living in adultery, what level of proof is required to establish that the wife is indeed living in adultery?

From Para 6,

6. The right claimed by the wife under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. is a civil right. Maintenance proceedings under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. are also civil proceedings, although breach may lead to penal consequences. In criminal cases, the standard of proof is proof beyond a reasonable doubt, whereas in civil cases, the standard is based on the preponderance of probabilities. The concept of proof beyond a reasonable doubt applies only to criminal trials and cannot be used in civil disputes, including matrimonial and maintenance cases. When the husband alleges that the wife is living in adultery and thereby disqualified from claiming maintenance, he is not required to prove the adulterous act beyond a reasonable doubt, as in criminal prosecution under the now-repealed Section 497 of IPC. Instead, proof by preponderance of probabilities is sufficient. Adultery typically occurs in secrecy, making direct proof rare. Consequently, adultery can often be established through circumstantial evidence, provided the circumstances lead logically to that conclusion.

Jinesh CR Vs Aswathy PR on 19 Nov 2025

Index of Maintenance Judgments under Sec 144 BNSS is here.

MS Gokaldas Paper Products Vs MS Lilliput Kidswear Ltd Anr on 5 Apr 2023

Posted on November 23, 2025 by ShadesOfKnife

A single judge of Delhi High Court held that acts of Contempt may be purged/remedies but not acts of perjury.

From Paras 7 and 8,

7. This brings us to the next issue i.e., whether Respondents have committed the offence of perjury by making a false statement in the reply to the present petition. In the reply, Respondent No. 2 has categorically denied the liability for Petitioner’s dues, in contrast to his earlier admission. Mr. Nakul Mohta, counsel for Respondent No. 2, argues that the stand taken in the reply was in light of aforementioned facts that came to the knowledge of Respondent No. 2 at a later stage, and for this reason a civil suit was also filed against the Petitioner. Without prejudice, to the above, he contends that a mere contradictory stand taken in a pleading should not on its own invite an action for perjury in exercise of the Court’s discretion provided under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [hereinafter “CrPC, 1973”]. Respondent No. 2, present in-person, explains that his stand was revised on account of fresh information received from his accounts team regarding debit notes that had been raised on the Petitioner for defective supplies. He states that earlier at the time of confirming Petitioner’s dues, he was unaware of the said debit notes and was in fact, hard pressed by multiple legal proceedings which were ongoing. At this juncture, he is willing to tender an unconditional apology to this Court.
8. The Court is unconvinced by the above submissions. Respondent No. 2, initially refuted the liability to pay the Petitioner’s dues, as recorded in order dated 17thDecember, 2012 in CO. PET. 519/2012. Subsequently in the said proceedings, he filed an affidavit in reply in February, 2013 [hereinafter “Affidavit of February, 2013”, provided at Annexure-C] admitting his liability and clarifying that the earlier denial was a bona fide mistake on account of a mix-up of files with a similarly named company. He further undertook to pay Petitioner’s dues in ten equal monthly instalments commencing from 01st April, 2013. Now, faced with the present contempt action he has denied his liability entirely by raising a plea of debit notes and has instead raised a claim on the Petitioner.

From Paras 10-12,

10. In the opinion of the Court, reply to the contempt petition, supported by Respondent No. 2’s affidavit, which denies the liability to pay Petitioner’s dues is plainly false in view of unambiguous and categorical admission made to the contrary, in the Affidavit of February, 2013. The explanation or the change in stand premised on Respondents being burdened by multiple pending litigations, downsizing/ lack of staff and lack of knowledge, is not convincing. In the opinion of the Court, the revised stand in the reply appears to be a wilful false statement. In the Affidavit of February, 2013, Respondent No. 2 verified that he was well-versed with the facts and circumstances of the case and that he is competent to swear the affidavit. He further verified that the statements made therein were true and correct to best of his knowledge. The legal system relies heavily on the honesty and integrity of individuals who appear before courts. When one makes a statement before the court or signs an affidavit, they are making a solemn declaration to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Filing of a false affidavit is a serious offence that undermines the very foundation of the legal system. The subsequent reply and accompanying affidavit prima facie contain false statements made in the course of judicial proceedings, which is punishable under Section 193, 199 and 200 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 [hereinafter, “IPC, 1860”].
11. Respondent No. 2 has offered to tender an unconditional apology. However, in the opinion of the Court, the same is of no avail. Perjury, is the act of knowingly and wilfully making false statements under oath, with the intent to deceive or mislead the court. It is a serious criminal offence, as it strikes at the very heart of the judicial process by undermining the integrity of the evidence presented in Court. The act of contempt can be purged or remedied, by the offending party, but in contrast, perjury cannot. Simply recanting or correcting a false statement cannot undo the act. Affidavits in a court of law have sanctity and cannot be taken casually. Thus, a false statement to the Court has to necessarily invite adverse action. In the present matter, the Court is not concerned as to why the promised schedule of payments has been breached by Respondents. The primary concern is Respondent No. 2’s statement of denying the liability of the dues in face of an earlier unequivocal admission. Such a contradictory stand without any cogent explanation is prima facie a deliberate false statement to mislead the Court and thus an apology by Respondent No. 2 would not deter an action invited for perjury.
12. Accordingly, this Court is prima facie of the view that offences under Sections 191 and 192 of IPC, 1860 punishable under Section 193, 199 and 200 of IPC, 1860 have been committed by Respondent No.2 in relation to the present proceedings. In terms of Section 340(1) of CrPC, 1973 read with Section 195(1)(b)(i) of CrPC, 1973, this Court is of the opinion that it is expedient in the interests of justice that an inquiry should be made into the false statement made by Respondent No. 2 in the reply to the present petition, for which a written complaint should be made to the concerned Metropolitan Magistrate. The Registrar General is hereby directed to draw up and make a complaint in the above terms and send it to the appropriate Metropolitan Magistrate within four weeks. The said complaint will be accompanied by a complete certified copy of the entire file of the present matter and CO. PET. 519/2012.

MS Gokaldas Paper Products Vs MS Lilliput Kidswear Ltd Anr on 5 Apr 2023

Index of Perjury Judgments is here.

Ratheesh Vs Sreelakshmi and Ors on 14 Mar 2025

Posted on October 22, 2025 by ShadesOfKnife

A single judge of Kerala High Court held as follows, Even to dispose Interim Maintenance Applications, call for affidavits.

From Paras 6 and 7,

6. A slew of directions in the form of guidelines issued by the Supreme Court in Rajnesh (supra) and extracted above are mandatory in nature and must be followed in all maintenance cases by all Courts dealing with maintenance throughout the country. The judgment in Rajnesh (supra) was delivered on 04/11/2020 and the guidelines therein have been circulated to all the Courts in India for compliance. After the judgment in Rajnesh (supra) was rendered, the Supreme Court in the judgment in Aditi Alias Mithi v. Jithesh Sharma [(2023) SCC OnLine SC 1451] which was delivered on 06/11/2023 noticed that guidelines in Rajnesh (supra) have not been followed by many courts in the country while fixing the maintenance, either interim or final. The Supreme Court expressed its deep concern in not adhering to the mandatory guidelines given in Rajnesh (supra) so far as the requirement of filing the Affidavit of Disclosure is concerned. Accordingly, the Supreme Court has issued directions to re-circulate a copy of the judgment containing guidelines for expeditious disposal of cases involving grant of maintenance to judicial officers in all High Courts across the country. However, it is quite unfortunate to notice that, despite the specific directions of the Supreme Court in Rajnesh (supra) and Aditi Alias Mithi (supra), various Courts in the State, like in the present one, are passing orders, either interim or final, fixing maintenance, without there being any Affidavit of Disclosure on record filed by the parties. This Court can take judicial notice of the said fact from the number of Original Petitions [(OP(Crl.)] and Revision Petitions [(RP(FC)] filed before this Court challenging the interim as well as final order of maintenance passed without bringing on record the Affidavit of Disclosure of the parties in terms of the directions in Rajnesh (supra).
7. Coming to the facts of the case, admittedly, neither of the parties has filed the disclosure affidavit in terms of the decision rendered by the Apex Court in Rajnesh (supra). However, the Family Court disposed of the interim maintenance application as per the impugned order considering the pleadings. The petitioner herein, while considering the application for interim maintenance, pointed before the Family Court that the 1st respondent did not file the affidavit showing her assets and liabilities. However, the Family Court took the view that since the petitioner himself did not file the affidavit, he could not take up such a contention. Guideline No.72.1(a) in Rajnesh (supra) specifically says that the parties in all maintenance proceedings, including pending proceedings, throughout the country, shall file an Affidavit of Disclosure of Assets and Liabilities before the concerned court as a mandatory requirement. Guideline No.72.2(b) in Rajnesh (supra) makes it mandatory for the applicant making a claim for maintenance to file a concise application accompanied by the Affidavit of Disclosure of Assets. It was further observed that based on the pleadings filed by both parties and the Affidavits of Disclosure, the court would be in a position to make an objective assessment of the approximate amount to be awarded towards maintenance at the interim stage. It is true that guideline No.72.3 says that the respondent also must submit the reply along with the Affidavit of Disclosure within a maximum period of four weeks, and the court may not grant more than two opportunities for submission of the affidavit of Disclosure of Assets and Liabilities to the respondent. But the mere fact that the petitioner herein did not file an Affidavit of Disclosure as directed in Rajnesh (supra) would not absolve the 1st respondent from filing such an affidavit. Since the impugned order is passed without the affidavits of both parties, it cannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside. The matter is required to be remitted back for fresh consideration in accordance with the law by complying with the directions in Rajnesh (supra). The counsel for the 1st respondent submitted that the 1st respondent has now filed an Affidavit of Disclosure of Assets and Liabilities before the Family Court.

Ratheesh Vs Sreelakshmi and Ors on 14 Mar 2025

Citations: [2025:KER:22087]

Other Sources:

Index of Maintenance Judgments u/s 144 BNSS is here.

Srinivasa D Vs Asha on 20 Mar 2025

Posted on October 20, 2025 by ShadesOfKnife

A wonderful judgment from a single judge of Karnataka High Court, Bengaluru bench, acknowledging that litigants lie in their income affidavit and directing the Family Courts to initiate perjury proceedings in accordance with law.

From Paras 10 to 13,

10. Time and again, it is seen by this Court that in several matters, the parties deliberately do not disclose their correct income, avocation, details of assets and liabilities with an intent to portray lesser income and secure favourable order by misleading and misguiding the Court, which is highly deplorable. In the present case, the respondent has deliberately suppressed the materials, which was well within her knowledge and played mischief and mislead the Court to get a favourable order. The sanctity of the Court and its orders would necessarily have to be respected by all the parties to the proceedings and so also by the learned counsel representing the parties.
11. This Court hopes and trusts that the learned counsels representing the parties advise their respective parties with regard to seriousness and sanctity of the Court orders and also be aware themselves of the sanctity of the Court orders and warn their clients/parties with regard to legal consequences of misleading, misrepresenting, filing false affidavit and adducing false statements on oath by way of oral and documentary evidence.
12. In view of several instances where parties are careless and deliberately making false statements on oath and filing false affidavits, this Court deems it appropriate to direct the Family Court/Trial Court dealing with such matters to initiate suitable action in accordance with law so that careless filing of affidavits and casual approach before the Court while filing assets and liabilities in the form of affidavits and adducing evidence before the Court is curbed and the person at fault is penalized by appropriate action of the Court.
13. At this stage, this Court deems it appropriate to issue following guidelines and directions to Family Courts and trial Courts dealing in maintenance applications:
a) Family Courts/Trial Courts dealing in maintenance applications shall insist on filing assets and liabilities and expenses as per the judgment in the case of Rajnesh -vs- Neha and another reported in (2021)2 SCC 324.
b) If an application is filed to summon salary details or other source of income by either spouse, the same shall be considered favourably, in the interest of justice.
c) If the Family Courts/Trial Courts are of the opinion that the salary certificates/details and particulars of other source of income are required to decide the maintenance application, it shall do so by passing suo motu orders for the same from either or both spouses.
d) In case of false Affidavits filed on oath and false information given deliberately to mislead and secure favourable orders by such information, the defaulting party shall be liable to face legal consequences in accordance to law.
e) Any such maintenance secured by way of such misleading and false/wrong information, shall be ordered to be refunded to the aggrieved party.
f) Maintenance applications both interim and main shall be decided expeditiously.
g) These Guidelines shall be strictly followed and adhered.

Srinivasa D Vs Asha on 20 Mar 2025

Citations: [2025:KHC:11787]

Other Sources:

Index of Maintenance Judgments u/s 144 BNSS is here. Index of DV Judgments is here.

Vinod Kumar K Vs Chaitra N on 3 Apr 2025

Posted on October 20, 2025 by ShadesOfKnife

A good judgment from a single judge of Karnataka High Court, Bengaluru bench, refusing maintenance to a lying wife and directing to initiate perjury proceedings in accordance with law.

From Paras 7 to 11,

7. As per the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajnesh stated supra, in all the maintenance petitions, parties are duty bound to file assets and liabilities and disclose their true income, avocation, employment and so also details of income, assets and liabilities of the other spouse. In the present case, petitioner – husband has filed assets and liabilities showing the details of his employment, income etc., It is also stated about job of the respondent and what is the income drawn by the respondent – wife. On the contrary, respondent – wife though filed assets and liabilities for the 2nd time on 8.11.2022, very cleverly and intentionally suppressed fact of her employment as a Guest Teacher in Government Junior Primary School and income she is getting from the said employment. Nothing prevented the respondent from saying so in the affidavit of assets and she was not asked by her counsel with regard to disclosing her employment and the income and if it was brought to her notice and knowledge, she would have definitely disclosed the same in the affidavit. The fact that she has sought for unconditional apology itself apparently clear that she has suppressed the true facts before the Court. This kind of suppression of material before the Court with deliberate intention to mislead the Court to obtain a favourable order in the maintenance cases is deplorable and cannot be accepted. Fortunately, the petitioner is able to secure certain information under the RTI Act, due to which Court came to know with regard to employment of the respondent, otherwise, it would not have come to the notice of the Court. Such attitude and behaviour of the respondent before the Court is deplorable and cannot be accepted.
8. In the present case on hand, the income generated by the respondent – wife during her employment as a Guest Teacher was around Rs.10,000/- to Rs.15,000/-, which is not clearly stated. If the average is taken, it is Rs.12,500/- per month. Whereas, the petitioner – husband is earning Rs.47,240/- and after deduction getting Rs.21,000/- per month.
9. In view of the discussion made hereinabove, it is apparently clear that the respondent – wife was working and capable of working and earning as on the date of filing 2nd affidavit of assets and liabilities before the Family Court. It is not the case of the respondent that she is unable to work and incapable to earn income and therefore to be maintained by the petitioner. It is also stated that there are no children from the marriage. Considering the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the respondent – wife would not be entitled to maintenance.
10. The intent of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajnesh stated supra is to render justice to the parties on the basis of self declaration of assets and liabilities including income and occupation. But, it is seen that in most of the cases, there is deliberate suppression of facts only with an intention to secure favourable order. In view of several instances where parties are careless and deliberately making false statements on oath and filing false affidavits, this Court in RPFC No.24/2023 decided on 20th March 2025 directed the Family Court/Trial Court dealing with such matters to initiate suitable action in accordance with law so that careless filing of affidavits and casual approach before the Court while filing assets and liabilities in the form of affidavits and adducing evidence before the Court is curbed and the person at fault is penalized by appropriate action of the Court. This Court issued certain guidelines and directions to the Family Courts/Trial Courts dealing in maintenance applications. Accordingly, this Court deems it appropriate to direct the Family Court to initiate suitable action against the respondent – wife after affording reasonable opportunity
to both the parties.
11. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in compliance of the order of the Family Court, petitioner has deposited Rs.25,000/- in the execution proceedings. In view of the respondent – wife having suppressed the material facts of her employment and income and this Court coming to the conclusion that the respondent – wife would not be entitled for maintenance, I deem it appropriate to direct the respondent – wife to refund the said amount of Rs.25,000/- to the petitioner – husband.

Vinod Kumar K Vs Chaitra N on 3 Apr 2025

Citations: [2025:KHC:14149]

Other Sources:

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/67eef65cd50c1c738ee6dd37

Index of Maintenance Judgments u/s 144 BNSS is here.

Jagdamba Trivedi Vs Neha Trivedi on 18 Jan 2021

Posted on October 19, 2025 by ShadesOfKnife

A good judgment from a single judge of High Court of Chhattisgarh Judgment explaining how important it is to follow the mandate u/s 421 Cr.P.C. while executing maintenance orders u/s 125(1) Cr.P.C.

From Paras 10, 11 and 12,

10.A careful perusal of the aforesaid provision would show that for recovery of the amount of maintenance, procedure under Section 421(1) has to be followed by either issuing warrant for levying the amount due by attachment and sale of movable property belonging to the offender or by issuing a warrant to the Collector of the district, for authorising him to realise the amount as arrears of land revenue from the movable or immovable property, or both, of the defaulter. Section 421(3) provides that where the Court issues a warrant to the Collector under clause (b) of Subsection (1), the Collector shall realise the amount in accordance with the law relating to recovery of arrears of land revenue, as if such warrant were a certificate issued under such law.
11.A conjoint reading of the provisions contained under Section 125(3) read with Section 421 of CrPC would show that by virtue of Section 125(3) of CrPC, the Magistrate has been empowered to recover the amount of arrears of maintenance by following the procedure prescribed for levy of fine under Section 421 of CrPC. Two modes are prescribed under Section 421 of CrPC for recovery of the arrears of maintenance due as if it were a fine levied. The Court can either issue a warrant for the levy of the amount by attachment and sale of any movable property belonging to the defaulter or issue a warrant to the Collector of the District, authorising him to realise the amount as arrears of land revenue from the movable or immovable property, or both, of the defaulter under Section 421(1)(a) and 421(1)(b) of CrPC. It is only after the Magistrate has exhausted the two modes prescribed under Section 421 of CrPC and still fails to recover the arrears of maintenance due that he can sentence the person who committed the default to imprisonment as enjoined under Section 125(3) of CrPC for the period prescribed in the above-stated provision and if in the execution of sentence of imprisonment so awarded, the defaulter does not appear to suffer, the sentence so awarded, the Court should at the first instance issue summons/notice for his appearance and if the defaulter seems to be avoiding the summons, the Court in the second instance should issue bailable warrant for his appearance to undergo sentence. The Courts, at first and second instance, shall refrain from issuing non-bailable warrant.
12.It is quite vivid that the provisions contained under Section 125(3) of CrPC itself provide that the Court may sentence such a person for whole or
any part of each month’s allowance after the execution of the warrant, as such, Section 125(3) CrPC speaks only of issue of a warrant for levying the amount in the manner provided for levying fines and does not speak of a warrant of arrest. The issue of a warrant for levy of the amount due by way of attachment and sale is a condition precedent to the sentencing of the defaulter to imprisonment. As such, without following the procedure prescribed under Section 421(1)(a) and 421(1)(b) of CrPC and without issuance of warrant of attachment and sale, no warrant can be issued and no order for imprisonment can be passed under Section 125(3) of CrPC.

From Para 17,

17. Reverting to the facts of the instant case in light of the aforesaid legal analysis, it is quite vivid that learned Family Court, finding that the arrears of maintenance is due from the petitioner, straightway issued warrant of arrest without following the procedure laid down in Section 421(1)(a) and 421(1)(b) of CrPC, whereas learned Magistrate ought to have followed the procedure laid down in Section 421 of CrPC for recovering the arrears of the amount of maintenance, and if after following the procedure as envisaged in Section 421 of CrPC by issuance of warrant of attachment of movable and immovable property of the defaulter and sale thereof; still arrears of amount of maintenance remains due, then order of imprisonment can be passed, as such, the order directing issuance of non-bailable warrant of arrest against the petitioner is contrary to Section 125(3) read with Sections 421(1)(a) and 421(1)(b) of the CrPC. Accordingly, the order dated 09/05/2019 (Annexure A/1) passed in MJC No. 43/2019 is hereby set aside and learned Family Court is directed to follow the procedure laid down by the Supreme Court in the matter of Rajnesh (supra) strictly for recovery of the amount of maintenance.

Jagdamba Trivedi Vs Neha Trivedi on 18 Jan 2021

Citations: [LAWS(CHH)-2021-1-96]

Other Sources:

https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/1070468/jagdamba-trivedi-vs-neha-trivedi/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/6050d0e69fca195f67640edb

https://www.indianemployees.com/judgments/details/jagdamba-trivedi-versus-neha-trivedi

https://www.the-laws.com/encyclopedia/browse/case?caseId=021202701000&title=jagdamba-trivedi-vs-neha-trivedi#:~:text=He%20would%20also%20submit%20that%20if%20the,(Annexure%20A/2)%20deserve%20to%20be%20set%20aside.

Index of Maintenance Orders u/s 144 BNSS is here.

S.Mumthas and Anr Vs M.Nizar @ Nizarudeen and Anr

Posted on October 19, 2025 by ShadesOfKnife

Case No: OP (Crl.) 802/ 2024

Index of Maintenance Judgments under Sec 144 BNSS is here.

Arun R.Naik Vs Shwetha Arun Naik and Anr on 17 May 2021

Posted on October 6, 2025 by ShadesOfKnife

A single judge of Kerala High Court directed to set aside the enhancement of Maintenance amount at 10% annually.

From Para 3,

3. In the M.C, the 1st petitioner had adduced oral evidence as PW1 and marked Exts.A1 to A10 as documentary evidence. On the respondent’s side, oral evidence was adduced by him as RW1 and Exts.B1 to B11 were marked as documentary evidence. The Family Court has appreciated the above evidence and allowed the M.C granting monthly maintenance allowance at the rate of Rs.10,000/- to the 1st petitioner and Rs.7,000/- to the 2nd petitioner, from the date of the petition. The Family Court has also directed the respondent to pay a lumpsum of Rs.30,000/- at the beginning of every academic year before June 30th subject to enhancement at the rate of 10% yearly to the 2nd petitioner for her education with effect from the date of the petition.

From Para 16,

16. The Family Court has ordered the monthly maintenance allowance in favour of the 2nd petitioner as Rs.7,000/- and directed the respondent to pay the same and also an additional sum of Rs.30,000/- within June 30th of every academic year subject to 10% increase annually. The said direction undoubtedly is an unjustifiable one and will not sustain for the reason that the monthly maintenance allowance contemplated under Section 125 Cr.P.C will take within it’s sweep all genuine expenses of the child viz. expenses for education, food, shelter, medicine etc. and therefore, a court while fixing it shall take into account all possible and reasonable expenditures of a child. Therefore, if a lumpsum amount is fixed by the Family Court as payable, undoubtedly it would take care of all reasonable expenditures of the child. Moreover, the direction to pay Rs.30,000/- annually to the 2nd petitioner, in every academic year in addition to a lumpsum amount ordered as payable towards monthly maintenance allowance, is devoid of any basis.

From Para 17,

17. The Family Court has fixed the monthly maintenance allowance payable to the 2nd petitioner as Rs.7,000/- after duly considering the educational expenses also. Therefore the direction to pay Rs.30,000/- as additional sum only to meet the educational expenses is devoid of merits and liable to be set aside.

Finally,

In the result, both revisions are allowed in part. The monthly maintenance allowance stands ordered in favour of the 1st petitioner by the impugned order is modified and reduced to Rs.7,000/- and that to the 2nd petitioner is modified and enhanced to Rs.10,000/-. The direction to pay Rs.30,000/- before 30th June of every academic year subject to 10% enhancement annually is set aside.

Arun R.Naik Vs Shwetha Arun Naik and Anr on 17 May 2021

Index of Maintenance Judgments under Sec 144 BNSS is here.

Rajesh Kumar Vs Nutan Devi on 18 Feb 2025

Posted on October 6, 2025 by ShadesOfKnife

A single judge of Patna High Court directed to enhance Maintenance amount at 5% annually.

From Paras 16-20,

16. However, I find that undisputedly the petitioner-husband was getting monthly salary of Rs. 30,000/- at the time of filing the maintenance petition and out of Rs. 30,000/-, award of Rs. 15,000/- per month towards maintenance is excessive.
17. Hence, the impugned order is modified by reducing the amount of maintenance @ Rs. 9,500/- per month, payable by the husband to his wife since the date of filing the maintenance petition.
18. However, this rate of maintenance will be subject to increment @ 5% per annum from today. In other words, after one year from today, the amount of the maintenance will be increased by 5% of maintenance and this increment will keep going on in the month of February every year and this maintenance will be permissible to the wife till she remarries.
19. The husband is having higher salary at present. But the number of dependents has also increased, because he has one additional legally wedded wife and one daughter born out of the wedlock with the new wife and as per statement of the learned counsel for the petitioner-husband, even second child is expected in a few months. Hence, increment of maintenance @ 5% per annum would be sufficient in the interest of justice.
20. It further transpires that during the pendency of this petition, petitioner-husband has made some payment. Hence, the petitioner-husband is also directed to pay up the whole arrear amount after setting off the payment already made towards maintenance, within the next two months by way of bank draft. In case, the arrear is not paid, it will be treated as a contempt of Court and the petitioner-husband would be dealt with accordingly.

Rajesh Kumar Vs Nutan Devi on 18 Feb 2025

Index of Maintenance Judgments under Sec 144 BNSS is here.

Shades of Knife

True Colors of a Vile Wife

Tag: 1-Judge Bench Decision

Alagarsamy Vs Mangalasundari and Anr on 20 Nov 2025

Jinesh CR Vs Aswathy PR on 19 Nov 2025

MS Gokaldas Paper Products Vs MS Lilliput Kidswear Ltd Anr on 5 Apr 2023

Ratheesh Vs Sreelakshmi and Ors on 14 Mar 2025

Srinivasa D Vs Asha on 20 Mar 2025

Vinod Kumar K Vs Chaitra N on 3 Apr 2025

Jagdamba Trivedi Vs Neha Trivedi on 18 Jan 2021

S.Mumthas and Anr Vs M.Nizar @ Nizarudeen and Anr

Arun R.Naik Vs Shwetha Arun Naik and Anr on 17 May 2021

Rajesh Kumar Vs Nutan Devi on 18 Feb 2025