The Delhi High Court has held that directing a periodic annual enhancement in maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) is legally permissible to offset inflation and preserve the real value of the awarded amount. Justice Madhu Jain dismissed a criminal revision petition filed by a husband challenging a Family Court order that awarded maintenance of ₹15,000 per month to his wife and ₹10,000 per month to his minor child, along with an automatic annual enhancement of 5%. The High Court affirmed that the husband, who possesses a degree in Hospitality Management from Edinburgh Napier University in Scotland, could not escape his maintenance liability by falsely projecting a minimal income.
Background of the Case
The marriage between the petitioner and Respondent No. 1 was solemnized on December 5, 2012, and a child was born on September 19, 2013. Following matrimonial disputes, the wife alleged that she was subjected to cruelty and dowry demands, forcing her to leave the matrimonial home and reside at her parental home since November 2014.
The wife subsequently filed maintenance proceedings before the Family Court. On February 13, 2020, the Principal Judge (East), Family Courts, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi, directed the husband to pay monthly maintenance of ₹15,000 to the wife and ₹10,000 to the minor child from January 2020 onwards, with an annual enhancement of 5%.
In its ruling, the Family Court referred to the Supreme Court’s ruling in Jasbir Kaur Sehgal v. District Judge, Dehradun, observing:
“Court has to consider the status of the parties, their respective needs, capacity of the husband to pay having regard to his reasonable expenses for his own maintenance and those he is obliged under the law and statutory but involuntary payments or deductions. Amount of maintenance fixed for the wife should be such as she can live in reasonable comfort considering her status and the mode of life she was used to when she lived with her husband and also that she does not feel handicapped in the prosecution of her case. At the same time, the amount so fixed cannot be excessive or extortionate.”
Arguments of the Parties
Challenging the Family Court’s decision under Sections 397 and 401 CrPC, the petitioner argued that the trial court erred in assessing his income and financial capacity. He contended that he was earning merely ₹11,000 per month working as a cook/marketing executive and owned no immovable properties. He further submitted that the properties highlighted by the wife belonged to his father and that the minor child was admitted to school under the Economically Weaker Section (EWS) category. The petitioner also argued that an automatic 5% annual enhancement could not be granted under Section 125 CrPC without recourse to Section 127 CrPC.
Conversely, counsel for the respondents submitted that the husband’s income claims were unconvincing given his higher education in Scotland. It was argued that the wife’s evidence before the trial court had remained substantially unrebutted as the petitioner failed to cross-examine her. Relying on precedents including Kusum Sharma v. Mahinder Kumar Sharma, Radhika v. Vineet Rungta, Jasbir Kaur Sehgal v. Distt. Judge, Dehradun, and Rakhi Sadhukhan v. Raja Sadhukhan, the respondents maintained that periodic enhancement is legally permissible to match the lifestyle and financial status of the parties.
Court’s Analysis and Conclusions
The High Court emphasized that its revisional jurisdiction under Sections 397 and 401 CrPC is narrow. Citing the Supreme Court decisions in Pyla Mutyalamma v. Pyla Suri Demudu and Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander, the Court noted that interference is justified only in cases of patent illegality, perversity, jurisdictional error, or material irregularity.
Examining the merits, the Court observed that the wife’s testimony regarding her financial dependence, the child’s educational expenses, and the petitioner’s financial standing remained unchallenged due to the lack of cross-examination by the husband. The Court rejected the husband’s plea of earning only ₹11,000 per month, noting that he holds a degree in Hospitality Management from Edinburgh Napier University, Scotland, and failed to place cogent evidence showing restricted earning potential.
Addressing the challenge to the 5% annual enhancement, the High Court held:
“Maintenance awarded under Section 125 Cr.P.C. is intended to ensure that the wife and the minor child are able to maintain themselves with dignity and in a manner broadly commensurate with the status enjoyed during the subsistence of the marriage. It is a matter of judicial notice that the cost of living and inflation increase with the passage of time, resulting in a gradual erosion of the real value of a fixed maintenance amount. A direction providing for a reasonable annual enhancement merely preserves the efficacy of the maintenance awarded and cannot, by itself, be said to be arbitrary or contrary to law.”
Decision
Finding no illegality or material irregularity in the Family Court’s judgment dated February 13, 2020, the High Court upheld the maintenance order and dismissed the revision petition along with any pending applications.
Case Title: Rahul Gaurav Nagar v. Neeta @ Savita & Anr.
Case No.: CRL.REV.P. 16/2021
Bench: Justice Madhu Jain
Date: 27.07.2026
