Rise In Husband’s Income Coupled With Increase In Cost of Living Constitutes Clear Change In Circumstances For Enhancement Of Maintenance: Delhi High Court

The Revision Petition before the High Court was filed against the order passed by the Family Court dismissing the application filed by the petitioner wife under Section 127 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 CrPC, seeking enhancement of the amount of maintenance.

The Single Bench of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma stated, “The maintenance fixed in 2012 at ₹10,000/- per month, which was found sufficient at that time against the respondent‟s net salary of ₹28,705/-, cannot by any stretch of reasoning be said to remain adequate in the year 2025, when the respondent is drawing a pension of ₹40,068/-. The rise in his income coupled with the significant increase in the cost of living constitutes a clear change in circumstances warranting enhancement of the amount of maintenance.”

Advocate K.S Negi represented the Petitioner while Advocate Shaharyar Ali represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

The marriage between the petitioner-wife and the respondent-husband was solemnized in the year 1990 and no child was born from the wedlock. The petitioner alleged that she was subjected to physical and mental harassment by the respondent and his family, including on account of dowry demands. It was her case that the respondent deserted her in 1992 and began residing with his parents. The respondent had filed a petition for restitution of conjugal rights against the petitioner, which was dismissed. He thereafter instituted divorce proceedings and in the said petition, the concerned Court had granted interim maintenance of Rs.3,000 per month to the petitioner under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 [HMA]. The divorce petition, however, was dismissed.

The petitioner-wife also filed a petition under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. before the concerned Family Court, which was allowed, and the respondent was directed to pay maintenance of Rs 10,000 per month. The respondent’s Criminal Revision was dismissed. The Petitioner filed an execution petition for arrears, as well as an application under Section 127 of the Cr.P.C., seeking an enhancement of the maintenance on the grounds that the husband’s salary had increased and the petitioner needed more maintenance to cover her check-ups and medical treatment. This application came to be dismissed. Aggrieved thereby, the Petitioner wife approached the High Court.

Reasoning

The Bench noted that the gross salary of the respondent was Rs 45,455 while his net salary was Rs 28,705. However, the order did not specify the nature of deductions made from his salary, nor whether such deductions were statutory and mandatory. “This aspect assumes importance in light of the settled position of law that only statutory and compulsory deductions can be excluded for determining the income of the husband for the purpose of computing maintenance”, it said.

The Bench found it disturbing that despite the petitioner continuing to be legally wedded to the respondent, and having been held entitled to maintenance by the Courts, the respondent had her name deleted from his CGHS card. “The entitlement to a CGHS/DGHS card is a valuable right flowing from the marital relationship and cannot be denied merely because the wife seeks treatment in a government hospital. The card provides access to several other facilities, including specialized consultations and emergency medical assistance, which become indispensable in old age. It is therefore expected that the respondent will ensure that the petitioner’s name is restored on his CGHS card, and that a copy thereof is handed over to her at the earliest, and not beyond a period of two months from the date of this order”, it stated.

The Bench noticed that the Family Court had overlooked the fact that in 2012, the net income of the respondent was taken to be only Rs 28,705 and on the basis of this net income, maintenance of Rs 10,000 was fixed in favour of the petitioner. In contrast, the admitted pension of the respondent now is Rs 40,068 per month, which is a clear increase, and no deductions were to be made from this amount.

The Court was also not unmindful of the fact that the respondent-husband is a senior citizen, surviving on his limited post-retirement resources. Considering that the petitioner, being the legally wedded wife, is also entitled to a fair amount which would enable her to maintain herself with dignity, the Bench ordered,“Accordingly, this Court holds that the petitioner is entitled to receive maintenance at the enhanced rate of ₹14,000/- per month from the respondent, payable with effect from the date of filing of the present revision petition. The respondent is directed to clear all arrears of maintenance at the enhanced rate within a period of six weeks from today.”

Cause Title: ABC v. XYZ (Neutral Citation: 2025:DHC:7596)

Appearance

Petitioner: Advocates K.S. Negi, Nikhil Rajput, Pranav Jagati, Piyush Negi

Respondent: Advocate Shaharyar Ali

Click here to read/download Order