Case at a Glance
A wife, a junior advocate aged about 50 who had suffered a mild brain stroke, sought enhancement of her maintenance from ₹7,000 to ₹30,000 a month from her husband, a government revenue official. The Family Court, Guntur, raised it only to ₹15,000, assuming she earned ₹10,000 a month as an advocate, even though it felt she would otherwise be entitled to ₹25,000. The Andhra Pradesh High Court held there was no proof of that income figure and, considering her health and reduced ability to work, enhanced maintenance to ₹25,000 a month from the date of filing the revision.
The wife had been receiving maintenance of ₹7,000 a month in M.C. No. 39 of 2010. In Crl.M.P. No. 460 of 2019 she sought enhancement to ₹30,000. The husband is described in the cause title as working in the Office of the Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, and earlier as a Deputy Tahsildar, Civil Supplies; her counsel stated his gross salary at ₹1,44,000 and net salary at ₹1,14,000.
By order dated 6 February 2025, the Family Court-cum-XII Additional District Judge, Guntur, partly allowed her application and fixed maintenance at ₹15,000 a month. Although it observed that she would be entitled to ₹25,000, it reduced the award by attributing to her an income of ₹10,000 a month as a practising advocate. She challenged the order in revision under Sections 438 and 442 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, pointing to a mild brain stroke that affected her ability to concentrate on her profession and to ongoing medical expenses. The husband did not appear, and the court appointed legal aid counsel for him.
The Key Question Before the Court
Can a court reduce a wife’s maintenance by assuming she earns a particular income from her profession, without any evidence of that income?
No Proof of Income, No Deduction
Dr. Justice Y. Lakshmana Rao found that the Family Court had erred in attributing a monthly income of ₹10,000 to the wife without evidence. Its own reasoning showed that, but for that unsupported figure, it would have awarded ₹25,000. A professional qualification, by itself, did not prove actual earnings.
The court also took into account the memo filed on her health: the mild brain stroke and its effect on her capacity to practise fully as an advocate, together with her medical expenses. Weighing these with the husband’s salary as stated by her counsel, the court concluded that ₹15,000 should be increased to ₹25,000 a month. The judgment does not cite any precedent and decides the matter on the facts.
What the Court Actually Held
- The Family Court erred in assuming the wife earned ₹10,000 a month as an advocate when there was no proof of that income.
- Her health condition, reduced ability to work and medical needs were relevant to fixing maintenance.
- Maintenance was enhanced from ₹15,000 to ₹25,000 a month, payable by the husband from the date of filing of the revision.
- Amounts already paid during the interim period will be adjusted; no costs.
Why This Judgment Matters
- Courts often reduce maintenance by assuming a qualified wife earns; this ruling insists that such income be proved.
- It recognises illness and reduced working capacity as relevant factors in maintenance.
- It shows that a revision can correct an award where the lower court’s own reasoning supported a higher figure.
What Should Advocates Take Away From the Judgment?
For Wives Seeking Maintenance
- A professional degree or enrolment does not prove earnings; ask the court to rely only on evidence of actual income.
- Place medical records on file; health and reduced capacity to work were weighed here.
For Counsel
- Where the lower court notes a higher entitlement but discounts it on assumed income, highlight that inconsistency in revision.
- Bring the spouse’s salary details on record; they anchor the enhancement.
Key Takeaways
- Assumed income cannot be deducted without proof.
- Being an advocate is not the same as earning as one.
- Illness and medical costs justify higher maintenance.
- Enhancement here runs from the date of the revision petition.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can a working or qualified wife get maintenance?
Yes, depending on the facts. In this case the High Court held that her income as an advocate could not be assumed without proof, and enhanced her maintenance.
From when is the enhanced maintenance payable?
From the date of filing of the criminal revision case, with amounts already paid during the interim period to be deducted.
Did the court rely on any Supreme Court precedent?
No precedent is cited in the judgment; the decision rests on the facts, the absence of income proof and the wife’s health.
Conclusion
The ruling corrects a common error in maintenance cases: treating a wife’s qualification as if it were proved income. With no evidence of earnings and a serious health condition on record, the High Court restored the figure the Family Court itself had considered fair.
Practical takeaway: In maintenance proceedings, income must be proved, not presumed; spouses claiming maintenance should file medical and expense records, and those opposing should bring actual evidence of earnings.
For more judgments, legal opinions and case analysis, visit courtkutchehry.com