The Delhi High Court has ruled that an increase in a husband’s pensionable income and the significant rise in the cost of living over time constitute a clear “change in the circumstances” under Section 127 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.), warranting an enhancement of maintenance awarded to the wife.
In a judgment delivered on September 1, 2025, Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma set aside a Family Court order that had rejected a wife’s plea for enhancement. The High Court increased the monthly maintenance from ₹10,000, fixed in 2012, to ₹14,000, payable from the date the wife filed the revision petition.
Case Background
The petitioner-wife and respondent-husband were married on April 28, 1990, with no children from the marriage. The wife alleged that the husband deserted her on February 7, 1992. Following this, multiple legal proceedings ensued. A petition for restitution of conjugal rights filed by the husband was dismissed in 1997, and his subsequent divorce petition was also dismissed in 2011.
In the divorce proceedings, the wife was granted interim maintenance of ₹3,000 per month under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. Separately, she filed a petition under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. for maintenance. On September 7, 2012, the Family Court directed the husband to pay her ₹10,000 per month from the date of her petition (April 4, 2008). This order was upheld by the High Court in 2013.
On September 13, 2018, the wife filed an application under Section 127 of the Cr.P.C. seeking to enhance the maintenance to ₹30,000 per month. She cited the husband’s promotion and increased salary after the 7th Pay Commission, her own increasing medical expenses for ailments like Arthritis and Thyroid, and the loss of financial support from her father, who passed away in 2017.
However, on September 3, 2024, the Family Court dismissed her application, observing there was “no substantial change in the earning of the respondent” as his gross salary in 2012 was ₹45,455, while his current pension was ₹40,068. The court also noted the wife’s fixed deposit of ₹4 lakhs and bank balance of ₹2,09,724.
Arguments Before the High Court
The petitioner-wife argued that the Family Court made a critical error by comparing the husband’s past gross salary with his current pension. She contended the correct comparison should have been with his net salary of approximately ₹28,000 in 2012, against which his current pension of over ₹40,000 is a clear increase. She further submitted that her savings were from her late father and constituted her only security for exigencies, and that the husband had failed to provide her with a CGHS card for medical treatment despite being a retired government employee.
The respondent-husband countered that he is a 70-year-old senior citizen with limited resources. He argued that the wife had not proven any substantial medical expenses and held significant funds in her bank account and fixed deposits. He maintained that he had been paying the maintenance of ₹10,000 per month without fail and that the Family Court’s order was justified.
High Court’s Analysis and Decision
Dr. Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma, upon examining the records, identified a flaw in the Family Court’s reasoning. The judgment states, “What has been completely overlooked is that in 2012, the net income of the respondent was taken to be only ₹28,705/- and on the basis of this net income, maintenance of ₹10,000/- was fixed… In contrast, the admitted pension of the respondent today is ₹40,068/- per month, which is a clear increase… Therefore, the comparison drawn by the Family Court was erroneous.”
The Court referenced its own decision in Sarita Bakshi v. State (2022), reiterating that the term “change in circumstances” under Section 127 Cr.P.C. is comprehensive and includes the financial conditions of both parties.
The judgment also addressed the issue of the CGHS card, expressing concern that the husband had the wife’s name deleted from it. During the proceedings, the Court directed the husband to facilitate her re-inclusion. It criticized the Family Court’s observation that a CGHS card was not required, stating, “The entitlement to a CGHS/DGHS card is a valuable right flowing from the marital relationship and cannot be denied merely because the wife seeks treatment in a government hospital.”
Concluding that the maintenance fixed in 2012 could not be considered adequate in 2025, the Court observed: “The rise in his income coupled with the significant increase in the cost of living constitutes a clear change in circumstances warranting enhancement of the amount of maintenance.”
While acknowledging that both parties are senior citizens, the Court sought to strike a “just balance.” It ordered the monthly maintenance to be enhanced to ₹14,000. The husband was directed to clear all arrears at the enhanced rate within six weeks and to ensure the petitioner’s name is restored on his CGHS card within two months.
