The Delhi High Court reaffirms that “change in circumstances” under Section 127 CrPC includes rise in respondent’s pension and increase in cost of living, warranting enhancement of maintenance. Applies binding authority; upholds and clarifies guiding precedents for all subordinate courts within Delhi.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | CRL.REV.P.(MAT.)/73/2024 of SMT KRISHNA KUMARI Vs SH SURENDER SINGH |
| CNR | DLHC010738222024 |
| Date of Registration | 24-10-2024 |
| Decision Date | 01-09-2025 |
| Judgment Author | HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE SWARANA KANTA SHARMA |
| Court | High Court of Delhi |
| Bench | Single Judge |
| Precedent Value | Binding on all subordinate courts in Delhi |
| Overrules / Affirms |
|
| Type of Law | Criminal Procedure—Maintenance under CrPC |
| Questions of Law | Whether “change in circumstances” under Section 127 CrPC includes increase in respondent’s pension and cost of living so as to warrant enhancement of maintenance granted under Section 125 CrPC. |
| Ratio Decidendi | The Court held that “change in circumstances” under Section 127 CrPC includes not only financial status of the respondent (payer) but also increased cost of living and rise in income. The enhancement in respondent’s pension, as compared to income considered at the time of original maintenance order, along with inflation and higher living costs, constitute material change warranting increase in the maintenance amount. The court clarified that denial or delay of ancillary rights (like CGHS card for medical care) cannot negate entitlement or adequacy of maintenance. The adequacy must be assessed in light of current financial status of both parties, prevailing standards of living, and relevant binding precedents. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court | Interpreted Section 127 CrPC as a flexible mechanism to ensure fairness per changed economic realities; relied on Supreme Court and Delhi High Court decisions regarding scope of “change in circumstances”; repeated the principles that only statutory and compulsory salary deductions may be excluded in computing income; maintained that judicial finality attends concluded maintenance orders unless successfully challenged; ordered rectification of medical benefits. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | Petitioner-wife’s application for enhancement of maintenance (from ₹10,000 to ₹30,000 per month) under Section 127 CrPC was dismissed by Family Court on ground that respondent, a retired senior citizen, experienced no substantive rise in income since the 2012 order. Petitioner claimed increased expenses due to ill-health, medical bills, and loss of parental support. Respondent’s current pension (₹40,068) was higher than the net salary (₹28,705) originally considered, although lower than his gross salary then. Issue of CGHS card entitlement for petitioner also arose. |
| Citations |
|
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate (Family and Criminal) Courts in Delhi |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts; Supreme Court (on interpretation of “change in circumstances” under Section 127 CrPC) |
| Follows |
|
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- The judgment clarifies that increase in respondent’s pension/income and rise in living costs due to inflation are valid “changes in circumstances” under Section 127 CrPC justifying enhancement of maintenance.
- Conclusively states that the financial situation to be compared is the actual net income used for original maintenance, not gross salary, and subsequent actual pension.
- Reiterates that only statutory/mandatory deductions are excluded in income calculations; ambiguity in prior orders cannot be revisited if those orders have attained finality.
- CGHS/DGHS card or similar medical entitlements form part of spousal rights incidental to maintenance in a government servant’s case; denial of such ancillary rights cannot justify reducing or freezing maintenance.
- The court recognizes both spouses’ advanced age and attempts a just balance between the needs of petitioner and genuine capacity of respondent.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The court examined the text of Section 127(1) CrPC and quoted settled Delhi High Court and Supreme Court precedents, especially Sarita Bakshi, Nitin Sharma, Chanchal Verma, and Bhagwan Dutt v. Kamala Devi.
- Affirmed that “change in circumstances” incorporates not only rise in income of respondent but also increase in costs/financial needs of the recipient spouse.
- Noted the Family Court’s error in comparing respondent’s current pension with gross (not net) salary of 2012, given that the 2012 maintenance was set based on the net salary of ₹28,705, while current pension is ₹40,068—constituting a real increase in capacity.
- Held that finality attached to the earlier (2012) maintenance order bars reassessment of those deductions or fixations unless that order is set aside.
- Addressed petitioner’s entitlement to CGHS card as a legal right incidental to marriage and government service; found denial of such benefit as improper.
- Enhanced monthly maintenance to ₹14,000 from the date of revision petition, balancing respondent’s retirement/age against changed circumstances and inflation.
- Directed restoration of petitioner’s name on respondent’s CGHS card, stating such a benefit cannot be withheld.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner:
- The Family Court failed to consider increased pension/income of respondent since 2012.
- Maintenance fixed in 2012 on much lower net salary; present pension is significantly higher.
- Respondent continues earning from private practice as Advocate.
- Petitioner is now solely dependent—parental support is lost; savings are minimal and meant for emergencies.
- Petitioner suffers from serious health conditions; requires CGHS card for accessible medical care.
- Maintenance must reflect increased cost of living and change in circumstances.
Respondent:
- Respondent is a retired senior citizen with fixed income; no material increase in resources.
- Petitioner failed to demonstrate any substantial new medical costs; avails free/low-cost government medical treatment.
- Petitioner maintains significant savings, bank FDs; not in financial hardship.
- Maintenance is being paid regularly—no defaults; petitioner has not sought dissolution or cohabitation.
- Family Court order is sound and reasoned; petition should be dismissed.
Factual Background
The marriage between petitioner and respondent was solemnized in 1990 and they have lived separately since 1992. Respondent’s divorce petition was dismissed; petitioner was awarded maintenance under Section 125 CrPC, fixed in 2012 at ₹10,000 per month when respondent’s net salary was ₹28,705. Respondent retired in 2017; his pension is now ₹40,068 per month. Petitioner, with health issues and lacking family support after her father’s death, sought enhancement to ₹30,000. The Family Court dismissed her application, stating no material change in respondent’s circumstances.
Statutory Analysis
- Section 125 CrPC: Maintenance to wife prescribed by Magistrate.
- Section 127(1) CrPC: Allows modification/enhancement of maintenance on “proof of change in the circumstances”. The court interpreted this to include any material change, especially in financial status of parties and inflation.
- The court further ratified the principle that income calculations for maintenance must exclude only statutory deductions, as explained in Nitin Sharma and Chanchal Verma.
Procedural Innovations
The High Court, during proceedings, directly ordered the respondent to provide petitioner a copy of the CGHS card, and made timelines for compliance—addressing a commonly neglected ancillary right in maintenance litigation.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed (Principles in Sarita Bakshi, Nitin Sharma, Chanchal Verma, Bhagwan Dutt v. Kamala Devi affirmed and clarified.)
Citations
- Sarita Bakshi v. State: 2022 SCC OnLine Del 1707
- Nitin Sharma v. Sunita: 2021 SCC OnLine Del 694
- Chanchal Verma v. Anurag Verma: 2022 SCC OnLine Del 2993
- Bhagwan Dutt v. Kamala Devi: (1975) 2 SCC 386
- CRL.REV.P.(MAT.) 73/2024, Delhi High Court, Judgment dated 01.09.2025 (Reportable)