In a significant ruling on maintenance rights, the Gujarat High Court has refused to interfere with a Family Court order granting ₹15,000 per month to a wife, emphasizing that a husband cannot evade his legal duty merely by pointing to the wife’s alleged earnings.
Background of the Case
The case, Lalitkumar Jivrajbhai Vaghela vs State of Gujarat & Anr., arose from a challenge to a Family Court order dated February 19, 2021. The husband had approached the High Court seeking to set aside the enhancement of maintenance from ₹5,000 to ₹15,000 per month.
Read also:- Supreme Court Quashes Copyright Case Against Filmmaker Sujoy Ghosh Over ‘Kahaani 2’
The wife had earlier moved an application under Section 127 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), seeking increased maintenance, citing rising expenses and alleging that her husband earned between ₹70,000 and ₹75,000 monthly. She also alleged that she was subjected to cruelty and forced out of the matrimonial home in 2018.
On the other hand, the husband argued that his financial obligations-including supporting his parents, rent, and loan repayments-were not properly considered. He also claimed that the wife earned around ₹15,000 per month through tailoring work.
After hearing both sides, Justice Hasmukh D. Suthar noted that the Family Court had carefully assessed both oral and documentary evidence before granting maintenance.
Rejecting the husband’s argument about the wife’s earnings, the Court observed that “mere earning by the wife cannot be a ground to deny her maintenance.”
The bench relied on settled law laid down by the Supreme Court, reiterating that a wife’s ability to earn does not automatically disqualify her from receiving maintenance, especially if she cannot maintain herself adequately.
The Court further stressed that maintenance provisions are rooted in the idea of social justice.
“The husband cannot escape from his liability… it is his legal and ethical duty to maintain his wife,” the Court said, underlining the obligation to ensure a standard of living similar to that enjoyed during marriage.
Read also:- Delhi HC Orders Newslaundry to Remove ‘Disparaging’ Remarks Against Aaj Tak, India Today
It also noted that there had been a clear change in circumstances, including an increase in the husband’s income over time, justifying the enhancement under Section 127 CrPC.
The High Court took into account that the husband’s salary had increased significantly since the earlier maintenance order. It also found that his claims of heavy financial liabilities were not sufficient to override his primary duty towards his wife.
Importantly, the Court found no convincing evidence to support the husband’s claim that the wife had a stable independent income capable of sustaining her.
Read also:- Post-Retirement Pay Reduction Valid If Disciplinary Proceedings Began During Service: Supreme Court
Concluding that the Family Court’s order was reasoned and legally sound, the High Court held that no interference was warranted under its revisional jurisdiction.
“The applicant has failed to point out any patent error,” the Court noted, adding that the order did not suffer from any legal infirmity.
Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Application was dismissed, and the maintenance of ₹15,000 per month in favour of the wife was upheld.
Case Details
Case Title: Lalitkumar Jivrajbhai Vaghela vs State of Gujarat & Anr.
Case Number: Criminal Revision Application No. 283 of 2021
Decision Date: March 17, 2026
