In a significant ruling, the Orissa High Court has held that courts have the discretion to grant maintenance exceeding the amount claimed by the petitioner, provided it is justified by the circumstances. The judgment was delivered by a division bench comprising Justice B.P. Routray and Justice Chittaranjan Dash on February 14, 2025, in MATA No. 133 of 2024 – Nirmal Karnakar v. Parbati @ Parbati Karnakar.
Dismissing the appeal filed by the husband, the High Court upheld the Family Court, Rourkela’s order, which enhanced the maintenance of the wife from ₹1,500 to ₹10,000 per month. The court emphasized that maintenance should be fair and reasonable, irrespective of procedural technicalities.
Case Background
The case involved a matrimonial dispute between Nirmal Karnakar, a 72-year-old retired railway diesel engine driver, and his estranged wife, Parbati Karnakar, aged 63. The respondent-wife had initially been receiving ₹1,500 per month as maintenance. Given her advanced age, medical expenses, and lack of independent income, she sought an increase in maintenance to ₹7,000 per month.
The Family Court, Rourkela, after assessing the financial condition of both parties, enhanced the maintenance to ₹10,000 per month. The husband, who receives a pension of ₹50,000 per month, challenged this order, arguing that:
– The enhancement exceeded the amount claimed by his wife.
– The Family Court failed to properly assess his financial liabilities, including medical expenses and obligations towards his family.
– The court lacked jurisdiction to grant maintenance beyond the amount explicitly pleaded in the petition.
Important Legal Issues
The appeal primarily raised the following legal questions:
1. Can a court grant maintenance exceeding the amount claimed by the petitioner?
2. Under what circumstances can maintenance be modified or enhanced?
3. What factors should be considered while determining a fair maintenance amount?
The court analyzed these issues in light of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, and Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, along with relevant precedents.
Legal Provisions Cited by the Court
– Section 25(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955:
– Allows courts to vary, modify, or rescind maintenance orders if there is a material change in circumstances.
– Requires that such modification must be based on an application by either party and backed by evidence.
– Section 127 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973:
– Empowers courts to alter maintenance amounts if there is proof of a change in financial circumstances of either party.
Key Observations of the Court
In rejecting the husband’s argument that the maintenance could not exceed the claimed amount, the High Court relied on judicial precedents:
1. Punjab & Haryana High Court in Kamaldeep Kaur & Anr. v. Balwinder Singh (2005 SCC OnLine P&H 417)
– Held that courts have a duty to award just and reasonable maintenance, even if it exceeds the pleaded amount.
– The court stated:
“Once the legislation has cast duty on the Court to award just and reasonable maintenance, the same cannot be denied on mere technicalities.”
2. Andhra Pradesh High Court in G. Amrutha Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh (Crl.R.C. No. 80 of 2023)
– Ruled that courts can enhance maintenance amounts beyond the original claim if it aligns with the financial capacity of the husband and the needs of the wife.
3. Orissa High Court’s Own Observation in the Present Case:
– The court emphasized:
“Judicial discretion must be exercised to provide a fair and just maintenance amount, considering the dependent’s actual needs and the payer’s financial capability, even if the claim was initially understated.”
– It further noted that the husband had concealed his pension details, which became known only during the proceedings.
Decision of the Court
After examining the case, the Orissa High Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the Family Court’s order. It ruled that:
– The enhancement in maintenance was justified given the financial disparity between the parties.
– Though the Family Court may have procedurally erred in awarding an amount beyond the claim, the substance of the order was correct.
– The ₹10,000 monthly maintenance constituted less than 25% of the husband’s pension, making it a reasonable amount for the wife’s sustenance.
The court directed the husband to continue paying ₹10,000 per month, including arrears, to the wife.
