Husband’s Financial Capability and Undocumented Alimony Claims Constitute Changed Circumstances Warranting Enhancement of Maintenance

The parties were married in 1993 and have one daughter.

Following marital disputes, the respondent (wife) secured maintenance orders under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. in 1995, which were subsequently enhanced under Section 127 of the Cr.P.C. in 2002 and 2012.

In 2019, during recovery proceedings, the parties filed a joint memo to settle the matter for a permanent alimony of Rs. 9,50,000/- and filed for mutual consent divorce under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act.

While the petitioner (husband) paid Rs. 4,00,000/-, the respondent denied receiving the remaining balance of Rs. 5,50,000/-. The husband failed to conclude the divorce proceedings or prove the final payment.

Consequently, the wife filed Crl.Misc.No.251/2023 for further enhancement. The Family Court partially allowed the petition, increasing maintenance to Rs. 6,000/- per month.

1. Whether the existence of an unfulfilled settlement/joint memo for permanent alimony bars a wife from seeking enhancement of maintenance under Section 127 of the Cr.P.C.

2. Whether the high cost of living, medical expenses (Covid-19 treatment), and the husband's admitted salary constitute a "change in circumstances" under Section 127 of the Cr.P.C.

The court applied Section 127 of the Cr.P.C., which allows for the alteration of maintenance orders upon proof of a "change in the circumstances".

The court relied on Gowramma v. Lakshmikanthaiah [2015 (4) AKR 408], establishing that a healthy, able-bodied husband has a legal obligation to support his wife according to the family standard.

The court cited Chander Parkash Bodhraj v. Shila Rani [AIR 1968 Delhi 1981] regarding the presumption of earning capacity.

The court cited Bhuwan Mohan Singh v. Meena and others [(2015) 6 SCC 353], affirming the husband's "sacrosanct duty" to provide financial support even through physical labor.

The court reasoned that because the permanent alimony agreement was never fully executed or attained finality (due to the disputed balance payment and lack of a divorce decree), the wife's right to maintenance remained intact.

The court found that the husband's admission of a Rs. 50,000/- monthly salary, contrasted with the fact that the last maintenance revision occurred in 2012, constituted a clear change in circumstances.

The court noted that inflation (escalation of prices), the parties' aging, and the wife’s medical expenses for Covid-19 treatment justified an upward revision.

It rejected the husband's defense of financial constraints, noting that as an able-bodied man with a steady income, he is legally bound to provide a standard of living to his wife comparable to his own.

The High Court dismissed the revision petition and upheld the Family Court's order, concluding that the impugned order did not suffer from any illegality or perversity as the grounds for enhancement under Section 127 Cr.P.C. were sufficiently established.