A prior compromise cannot permanently bar maintenance enhancement under Section 127 CrPC.

The wife obtained maintenance under Section 125 CrPC after this Court set aside the dismissal of her original application and directed payment of Rs.500 per month, while granting her liberty to seek enhancement.

In a later proceeding, the parties compromised at Rs.1,800 per month.

The wife subsequently applied under Section 127 CrPC for enhancement, and the JMFC, Tigiria, increased maintenance to Rs.4,000 per month from the date of her application.

The husband challenged that order, relying principally on the earlier compromise and his pension and medical circumstances.

He was a retired Constable receiving a monthly pension; he did not file an affidavit of assets and liabilities, whereas the wife did.

Whether the earlier compromise fixing maintenance at Rs.1,800 per month barred the wife from seeking a later enhancement under Section 127 CrPC.

Whether the JMFC’s enhancement of maintenance to Rs.4,000 per month was legally unsustainable or excessive in light of the husband’s circumstances.

Section 127 CrPC provides an independent statutory mechanism to alter maintenance upon proof of a material change in circumstances; an earlier maintenance arrangement does not permanently prevent a court from revising the amount when circumstances warrant it.

The Court also relied on Section 23 of the Contract Act, observing that an agreement opposed to public policy is not enforceable in court.

Maintenance under Section 125 CrPC is a beneficial, summary remedy intended to prevent destitution, and the amount may be judicially varied under Section 127 CrPC.

The Court further noted that a wife is entitled to a standard of living reasonably commensurate with her husband’s socioeconomic status.

The Court rejected the husband’s reliance on the compromise because the earlier order had expressly preserved the wife’s right to seek enhancement, and the compromise could not operate as an eternal bar to statutory variation under Section 127 CrPC.

The husband’s claims of cardiac and spinal surgeries and inability to pay more than Rs.1,800 were unsupported by corroborative documents.

Although the wife produced pension information obtained under the RTI Act, the Court did not rely on it because it had not been tendered in evidence and the husband had no opportunity to rebut it.

The husband’s pension was otherwise undisputed, he filed no assets-and-liabilities affidavit, and no other dependants were shown.

In those circumstances, Rs.4,000 per month was not excessive.

It dismissed the criminal revision as unmerited and confirmed the order enhancing maintenance from Rs.1,800 to Rs.4,000 per month from the date of the wife’s application.