The Gujarat High Court has refused to interfere with a Family Court order directing a husband to pay ₹50,000 per month as maintenance to his wife. The Court held that no legal error was found in the earlier decision.
Background of the Case
The matter arose from a criminal revision application filed by the husband, challenging an order passed by the Family Court, Anand, in December 2021. The Family Court had directed him to pay ₹50,000 monthly maintenance to his wife from March 12, 2019.
According to the wife, the marriage took place in 1995 and the couple lived together for several years. Over time, their relationship deteriorated, and she alleged neglect and lack of financial support. She also stated that she had been dealing with serious health issues and required financial assistance.
Read also:- Calcutta High Court Closes PIL on ECI Memo After Withdrawal, Emphasises Fair Poll Process
The husband, however, argued that the maintenance amount was excessive and beyond his financial capacity. He claimed that his business had suffered losses, particularly after the COVID-19 period, and that the Family Court had ignored key financial documents.
The husband’s counsel contended that:
- The wife was living with him at the time of filing the application.
- Interim maintenance was earlier fixed at ₹15,000, and the final increase to ₹50,000 was unjustified.
- His income had significantly reduced, and the court failed to consider income tax records and business losses.
On the other hand, the wife’s counsel opposed the revision, stating that:
- The husband had substantial business interests and concealed his real income.
- His financial transactions and lifestyle indicated higher earnings.
- The wife was suffering from cancer and required financial support for treatment.
Justice Hasmukh D. Suthar examined the record and noted that the marital relationship and obligation to maintain the wife were undisputed.
The Court observed that the Family Court had carefully evaluated the evidence, including the husband’s business activities, financial capacity, and the wife’s medical condition.
“The mere claim of reduced income cannot absolve the husband of his legal duty to maintain his wife,” the bench noted in substance, emphasizing that maintenance proceedings are meant to ensure basic support.
The Court also pointed out that:
- Income tax returns alone may not reflect true income in matrimonial disputes.
- The husband failed to produce convincing evidence showing inability to pay.
- The wife’s illness and need for medical treatment were relevant considerations.
Further, the Court reiterated that the ability of a wife to earn does not automatically disqualify her from receiving maintenance, especially when no proof of independent income is shown.
Concluding that there was no perversity or legal error in the Family Court’s findings, the High Court dismissed the revision application. It upheld the order directing payment of ₹50,000 per month as maintenance.
The Court stated that revisional jurisdiction is limited and cannot be used to re-examine evidence unless a clear error is shown. Finding none, it confirmed the Family Court’s order and vacated all interim reliefs.
Case Details
Case Title: Vasantbhai Premjibhai Vekariya vs State of Gujarat & Anr.
Case Number: Criminal Revision Application No. 175 of 2022
Judge: Justice Hasmukh D. Suthar
Decision Date: April 24, 2026
