The Delhi High Court has affirmed that family courts can order an automatic 5 per cent annual increase in monthly maintenance for an estranged wife and child, ruling that periodic raises are necessary to counter inflation and preserve purchasing power over time.
Dismissing a revision plea filed by a husband, Justice Madhu Jain during a July 27 hearing upheld a Karkardooma family court directive ordering him to pay a combined monthly allowance of Rs 25,000—comprising Rs 15,000 for his wife and Rs 10,000 for their minor son—effective from January 2020, alongside a mandatory 5 per cent yearly enhancement.
Judicial Findings On Inflation And Maintenance
The court observed that rising living costs and inflation progressively erode the real value of fixed maintenance payments over time. Justice Jain noted that a reasonable yearly adjustment preserves the effectiveness of support awards under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, ensuring that dependents can live with dignity and maintain a standard of living broadly comparable to what they enjoyed during marriage.
Rejecting the petitioner’s argument that future raises could only be granted under Section 127 CrPC upon demonstrating altered circumstances, the high court held that the 5 per cent annual escalation did not suffer from any jurisdictional error or patent illegality.
Rejection Of Financial Claims
The bench also rejected the husband’s submission that the trial court had overstated his financial capabilities. Although he claimed an income of just Rs 11,000 per month working in India, the court termed this assertion unconvincing, pointing out that he held a degree in hospitality management from Edinburgh Napier University in Scotland and had conceded during cross-examination that his employment corresponded to his qualifications.
Additionally, the court emphasized that the wife’s testimony regarding her financial dependence, child upbringing expenses, and the husband’s financial background remained unrefuted, as the husband failed to cross-examine her despite multiple opportunities. The court noted that the family court had properly evaluated the pleadings, income affidavits, and available evidence before issuing its February 13, 2020 judgment.
Background And Ongoing Disputes
The matrimonial dispute traces back to the couple’s marriage on December 5, 2012, and the birth of their son on September 19, 2013. While the husband contended that the couple had been living apart since November 2013, the wife alleged she was forced out of her marital home due to cruelty and dowry demands, filing a complaint with the Crime Against Women Cell on November 17, 2014. She has since resided with her parents.
A court-referred mediation on August 20, 2025, failed to yield a settlement. During trial proceedings, the husband asserted that he owned no immovable property, resided in rented accommodation, and that his family’s financial position was misrepresented by citing his father’s assets. He further argued that his son gained school admission under the economically weaker section category, reflecting limited financial means.
Opposing his revision petition, the wife’s counsel stated that recovery proceedings involving approximately Rs 7 lakh in arrears for the 2023–24 and 2024–25 financial years remain pending before the trial court. Emphasizing that the high court’s revisional jurisdiction does not extend to reassessing evidence in the absence of procedural or legal errors, Justice Jain dismissed the petition.
