Does an Increase in Maintenance under Section 127 CrPC Require Proof of Both Rise in Husband’s Income and Wife’s Needs? Clarifications on “Change in Circumstances” and Judicial Approach for Enhancement Petitions

Delhi High Court holds that a rise in husband’s pensionary income and cost of living—compared with the income considered at initial maintenance determination—constitutes a “change in circumstances” warranting enhancement of maintenance under Section 127 CrPC. The judgment clarifies judicial approach to assessing financial circumstances and affirms applicable precedent, providing binding authority for subordinate courts and persuasive value for other forums.

Summary

Practical Impact

What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note

• Clarifies that “change in circumstances” under Section 127 CrPC covers both rise in respondent’s pension/income and increased cost of living—even if the respondent is retired.
• Expressly holds that maintenance calculations must compare the actual (net) income considered in the original maintenance order with the current income, not merely compare gross with pension or vice versa.
• Reiterates judicial caution that only statutory and mandatory deductions are excluded when determining income for maintenance.
• Loss of independent family support (e.g., petitioner’s parent passing) and medical needs are relevant “circumstances.”
• Unambiguous direction that CGHS card entitlement arises from continued married status and cannot be denied on grounds of non-usage or government hospital access; procedural steps must be taken to reinstate such benefits.
• Lawyers handling enhancement petitions can cite the judgment on when inflation and increased income post-retirement constitute grounds for increasing maintenance.

Summary of Legal Reasoning

• The High Court began by identifying that the respondent’s pension (₹40,068/month) now exceeds the net income (₹28,705/month) on which maintenance was originally fixed in 2012, despite a lower gross salary then.
• Referred to precedent (Bhagwan Dutt v. Kamla Devi; Sarita Bakshi v. State) holding that all financial and circumstantial changes post-maintenance order (including inflation and increased needs) must be weighed under Section 127 CrPC.
• Cited prior Delhi High Court judgments mandating that only statutory and compulsory deductions are to be counted from income for maintenance purposes.
• Found that the Family Court erred by comparing pension with respondent’s former gross salary, instead of the actual (net) salary on which maintenance was computed.
• Held petitioner’s medical needs, loss of parental support, and increased living costs—all documented—constitute “changed circumstances.”
• Deemed the wife’s minimal savings irrelevant to the issue of sufficiency of the prior maintenance order.
• Directed respondent to restore petitioner’s name on his CGHS card within two months and hand a copy to her, terming it a right arising from the spousal relationship.

Arguments by the Parties

Petitioner

• Maintenance was fixed based on respondent’s net salary in 2012, which is now lower than his current pension.
• Respondent also earns through legal practice (enrolled with Bar Council of Delhi) in addition to pension.
• After her father’s death, petitioner is wholly dependent on respondent for sustenance and medical needs.
• Fixed deposits and bank balance were arranged by father, not the result of independent income.
• Medical needs require enhanced maintenance; denial of CGHS card unjustified.
• Maintenance amount has remained stagnant for 12 years despite inflation.

Respondent

• Is a senior citizen, retired, with limited resources; continues to pay maintenance consistently.
• Petitioner has not provided proof of substantial medical expenses; government hospital treatment is free.
• Petitioner maintains a significant bank balance and fixed deposit, thus not in financial distress.
• Despite prolonged maintenance payments, petitioner has not resumed cohabitation nor sought dissolution of marriage.
• Family Court’s impugned order is correct, having given due consideration to material on record.

Factual Background

The petitioner-wife and respondent-husband were married in 1990 and separated in 1992. Petitioner alleged harassment and desertion; no children were born. Maintenance of ₹10,000/month was fixed in 2012 under Section 125 CrPC after earlier interim orders and litigation. Petitioner’s father, on whom she also relied, died in 2017. Respondent retired in 2017 and now receives a pension. Petitioner filed for enhanced maintenance under Section 127 CrPC in 2018, citing increased expenses and the rise in respondent’s pension. The Family Court dismissed her application, leading to the present revision.

Statutory Analysis

• Section 127(1) CrPC was expressly analyzed: empowers courts to alter maintenance, on “proof of a change in the circumstances” of maintainer or recipient.
• Judicial treatment emphasized that “change in circumstances” extends beyond mere changes in income—it includes health, dependency, inflation, and loss of support.
• Judicially accepted that only statutory/mandatory deductions reduce income for maintenance purposes, as clarified in Nitin Sharma v. Sunita and Chanchal Verma v. Anurag Verma.

Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary

No dissenting or concurring opinions included in the judgment.

Procedural Innovations

• Court directed respondent to produce and hand over the CGHS card to the petitioner within two months, ensuring petitioner’s access to spousal medical benefits regardless of ongoing litigation or living arrangement.
• Recognized that execution petitions related to maintenance may require adjudication of ancillary applications, such as entitlement to medical benefits linked to maintenance orders.

Alert Indicators

• ✔ Precedent Followed

Citations

• Bhagwan Dutt v. Kamla Devi: (1975) 2 SCC 386
• Nitin Sharma v. Sunita: 2021 SCC OnLine Del 694
• Chanchal Verma v. Anurag Verma: 2022 SCC OnLine Del 2993
• Sarita Bakshi v. State: 2022 SCC OnLine Del 1707
• Rajnesh v. Neha, (2021) 2 SCC 324