In a recent development, a Division Bench of the Supreme Court expressed astonishment during an appeal hearing. This astonishment arose from the Jharkhand High Court's judgment, which had lowered the monthly maintenance amount from Rs. 5,000, as awarded by the Trial Court, to a mere Rs. 1,000. The Court went on to state that it could not discern any valid reason justifying such a substantial reduction in the awarded amount.

“It is shocking that the maintenance amount has been so drastically reduced to a petty amount of Rs. 1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand) per month for a lady to maintain herself”, Justices Vikram Nath and Ahsanuddin Amanullah stated.

Considering this, the Court has overturned the challenged order and reinstated the Trial Court's decision to grant Rs. 5,000 per month as maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Case Brief -

The husband (respondent) had submitted a criminal revision against the judgment issued by the Principal Judge of the Family Court in Girigih in the High Court wherein ex-parte maintenance of Rs.5000/- per month to the wife(petitioner).

In his argument, the respondent claimed that the order had been issued without proper notice and without affording him the opportunity to present his side. He further stated that he works as a part-time tutor and is financially constrained, being a humble priest in a village temple, which makes it difficult for him to pay Rs. 5,000 per month. On the contrary, the petitioner contested this, asserting that the order was not made without the respondent's knowledge. In fact, both parties had participated in proceedings at the Mediation Centre. However, subsequent to that, she had experienced cruelty and was compelled to leave her marital residence.

After hearing the arguments, the High Court ordered:

“From the reason of the impugned order, it appears that the learned Court below has awarded the maintenance by assessing the income of the petitioner to be Rs.25,000/- per month from his occupation of priesthood and tuition. A further income of Rs. 5 Lakh per annum from agriculture has also been stated without any documentary evidence to show that the petitioner was having agricultural land in his name. Assessment of income of Rs.25,000/- per month by tuition appears to be highly unrealistic considering the semi urban area in which the petitioner was living. A fair estimate of income cannot be more than Rs.5000/- to Rs.7000/- per month.”

The High Court based its decision on the precedent set by Rajnesh v. Neha (2021) 2 SCC 324. In this case, the Supreme Court held that the court must take into account the parties' respective status and the spouse's ability to provide support. Maintenance determinations should be contingent on the specific circumstances presented before the court, and the court should tailor the maintenance claim by considering various factors brought before it