Husband’s substantial salary increment and rising living costs justify enhancement of maintenance under Section 127 CrPC.

Applicant No. 1 (wife) and Applicant No. 2 (son) sought enhancement of maintenance from Respondent No. 2 (husband). Maintenance was first set in 2008 and enhanced by the High Court in 2013 to ₹5,000 and ₹3,000 respectively.

In 2017, the Applicants filed for further enhancement under Section 127 Cr.P.C. due to the implementation of the 7th Pay Commission and rising costs.

The Family Court, Ahmedabad, vide order dated 08.02.2019, granted a marginal increase of ₹1,000 each, totaling ₹10,000 per month.

The Applicants challenged this order as inadequate given the Respondent’s monthly government salary of approximately ₹64,000–₹70,000.

1. Whether the Family Court adopted a "myopic view" by granting a nominal enhancement of maintenance despite a significant increase in the Respondent’s income and the cost of living.

2. Whether the husband is liable to provide maintenance reflective of his actual financial status and the standard of living of the parties.

The Court applied Section 127 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.), 1973, regarding the alteration of maintenance allowance.

It relied on Rajnesh v. Neha & Ors. (2021) and Reema Salkan v. Sumer Singh Salkan (2019), which mandate that courts must consider the husband's standard of living, spiraling inflation, and high cost of living when determining maintenance.

The Court cited Bhuwan Mohan Singh v. Meena & Ors. (2015) and Anju Garg v. Deepak Kumar Garg (2022) to reiterate that a husband has a sacrosanct moral and legal duty to maintain his wife and minor children, which cannot be avoided by an able-bodied man.

The Court observed that since the 2013 enhancement, the Respondent’s salary significantly increased due to the 7th Pay Commission, while he occupied government quarters and had no other dependents.

The Court found the Family Court’s decision to increase maintenance by only ₹1,000 each after eight years to be insufficient and "myopic," failing to account for the price index/escalation and the educational expenses of the son.

The High Court emphasized that the husband's duty stands on a "higher pedestal" and maintenance must be commensurate with his financial stability and the standard of living enjoyed during the marriage.

The Respondent's arguments regarding the wife’s LLB degree and her refusal to join him were not considered sufficient grounds to deny a reasonable enhancement.

The Court modified the Family Court's order, enhancing the monthly maintenance to ₹10,000 for Applicant No. 1 (wife) and ₹5,000 for Applicant No. 2 (son) until he attains majority, effective from the date of the application.

The judgment dated 08.02.2019 in Criminal Misc. Application No. 2128 of 2017 was modified accordingly.