In Ritu Khatri v. Navneet Khanna, Rajasthan HC dismissed the revision petition filed by the wife challenging the amount of maintenance awarded by Family Court, whereby she was granted ₹8,000 per month as maintenance. She contended that the amount was grossly inadequate considering the husband’s income and status.

Court observed, “The law does not envisage that because the husband earns more, the wife must necessarily receive half or a substantial fraction thereof. Such an approach would amount to converting maintenance proceedings into a de facto claim for sharing of income or property, which is impermissible.”

The marriage between the petitioner and respondent was solemnized on 02.10.2019. The petitioner alleged that soon after marriage, she was subjected to dowry demands, harassment, and physical and mental cruelty, ultimately leading to her being deserted within 28 days of marriage. She claimed that she is highly qualified but presently unemployed and sought maintenance.

The wife argued that her husband is working as an HOD in a government institute and earning over ₹1.5 lakhs per month. She contended that Family Court ignored settled principles and wrongly awarded a “meagre” amount. She further argued that mere educational qualification does not disentitle a wife from maintenance.

However, the husband denied all allegations of cruelty and claimed that wife was well-qualified, capable of earning, and had independent means. He further argued that petitioner voluntarily lived separately without sufficient cause, thereby attracting the bar u/s 125(4) Cr.P.C., and that the short duration of marriage (about 57 days) was a relevant factor.

Court clarified the limited scope of interference in revision and observed, “Determination of maintenance involves a large element of judicial discretion, and unless such discretion is shown to be perverse… interference in revision is wholly unwarranted.”

It also noted the husband’s bona fide conduct in regularly paying maintenance after the order was passed by Family Court, despite the short duration of the marriage.

Court held that while qualification alone is not a bar, earning capacity is relevant, and the Court is entitled to take into account earning potential, qualifications, and past employment while determining the quantum.

Accordingly, High Court concluded that Family Court’s order was reasoned and balanced and dismissed the revision petition, affirming that maintenance must be reasonable, not excessive.