The Bombay High Court (Aurangabad Bench) has dismissed a revision application filed by a husband challenging the enhancement of maintenance to his divorced wife. The Court ruled that the acceptance of a lump sum maintenance amount by the wife under a previous order does not bar her from seeking enhancement under Section 127 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) upon the expiry of the period covered by the lump sum payment.
Justice Abhay S. Waghwase held that under the amended provisions of Section 125 CrPC, a lump sum payment covers a specified period not exceeding five years at a time, and consequently, a wife is entitled to renew her request for enhancement thereafter.
Background of the Case
The Respondent-wife initially instituted proceedings under Section 125 CrPC (Petition No. E-114/2015). The Family Court, Nanded, vide judgment and order dated September 29, 2020, directed the husband to pay monthly maintenance of Rs. 2,000 or, in lieu thereof, a lump sum amount of Rs. 2,50,000. The husband complied with the order, and the wife accepted the lump sum payment.
Subsequently, in 2022, the wife filed Petition No. E-153/2022 under Section 127 CrPC seeking enhancement of the maintenance amount. She contended that the quantum granted by the previous order was insufficient due to inflation and the rise in the cost of living, praying for an increase to Rs. 15,000.
The Family Court partly allowed her application on July 21, 2025, enhancing the maintenance amount from Rs. 2,000 to Rs. 6,000. Aggrieved by this order, the husband approached the High Court with a Criminal Revision Application.
Arguments of the Parties
Advocate I. D. Maniyar, appearing for the Revision Petitioner (husband), argued that the parties were married in 2001, but due to strained relations, he obtained a decree of divorce under Section 13(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act on August 31, 2018.
The primary contention raised by the petitioner was that since the directions in the order dated September 29, 2020, were to pay maintenance either monthly or in a lump sum, and he had already paid the lump sum of Rs. 2,50,000 which the wife accepted, it was not open for her to institute fresh proceedings under Section 127 CrPC. He submitted that the grant of lump sum maintenance precluded the wife from re-agitating the claim.
The Respondent-wife did not appear in the revision proceedings.
Court’s Analysis and Observations
Justice Waghwase examined the legal sustainability of the Family Court’s order. The Court referred to “Section 2(A) of amended provision under Section 125 CrPC,” quoting the provision as follows:
“(2A) Notwithstanding anything otherwise contained in sub-sections (1) and (2), where an application is made by the wife under clause (a) of sub-section (1) for the maintenance allowance, the applicant may also seek relief that the order may be made for the payment of maintenance allowance in lump-sum in lieu of the payment of monthly maintenance allowance, and the Magistrate may… pass an order that the respondent shall pay the maintenance allowance in lump-sum in lieu of the monthly maintenance allowance, covering a specified period, not exceeding five years at a time, or for such period which may exceed five years, as may be mutually agreed to, by the parties.”
The Court observed that the statutory provision explicitly stipulates that a lump sum maintenance order covers a period “not exceeding five years at a time,” unless the parties mutually agree to a longer period.
Applying this to the facts of the case, the Court noted that the “life” of the lump sum payment of Rs. 2,50,000 granted on September 29, 2020, was valid only for five years, i.e., until September 2025.
Justice Waghwase observed:
“Here, there is no mutual agreement, however, while enhancing maintenance, learned Family Court has taken into account above provision and has observed that, wife has exercised the option of availing lump sum maintenance of Rs. 2,50,000/- and, therefore, in view of above lifespan of five years, she is entitled to renew her request for enhancement.”
The Court further held that a divorced wife continues to receive maintenance until she remarries if she lacks the means for her livelihood. The petitioner failed to demonstrate that the wife had remarried.
Decision
The High Court concluded that there was no illegality or perversity in the Family Court’s decision to enhance the maintenance. The Court held that the wife was entitled to seek enhancement as the period covered by the lump sum payment was limited by statute.
Consequently, the Criminal Revision Application was dismissed.
Case Details:
- Case Title: Shivaji S/o Nagnath Phulari vs. Sonali W/o Shivaji Phulari
- Case Number: Criminal Revision Application No. 351 of 2025
- Coram: Justice Abhay S. Waghwase
