Sunita Devi vs. Sumit Bishnoi, 2025
The Court emphasized the principle that an able-bodied spouse cannot avoid maintenance obligations by claiming insufficient income, especially when some income sources are admitted.
Judgement Details
Court
Rajasthan High Court
Date of Decision
16 September 2025
Citation
Acts / Provisions
Section 13(1)(ia), Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
Section 25, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
Facts of the Case
-
The petitioner (wife) was initially awarded maintenance of Rs. 4,000 per month by the Family Court.
-
She filed a revision petition seeking enhancement of maintenance to Rs. 13,200 per month.
-
Petitioner claimed the respondent-husband earned approx. Rs. 1.15 lakh per month from ancestral land, contracted cultivation, and finance work.
-
Respondent contended he only had limited ancestral land (3 bighas) with yearly income of Rs. 75,000 and earned Rs. 10,000 per month working as a conductor.
-
The Petitioner had no independent income and was supported by her parents.
Issues
-
Whether the respondent-husband had sufficient earning capacity to pay enhanced maintenance?
-
Whether maintenance granted to petitioner needed to be enhanced based on respondent’s income and assets?
-
Whether the respondent can claim incapacity to earn despite being able-bodied?
Held
-
The Maintenance amount was enhanced from Rs. 4,000 to Rs. 7,000 per month.
Analysis
-
The Court emphasized the principle that an able-bodied spouse cannot avoid maintenance obligations by claiming insufficient income, especially when some income sources are admitted.
-
The decision balanced the respondent’s earning capacity and the petitioner’s financial needs fairly.
-
The presumption of earning capacity in able-bodied spouses reinforces the protective scope of maintenance laws for dependents.
-
By enhancing the maintenance, the Court ensured the petitioner’s reasonable livelihood without unduly burdening the respondent beyond his means.