Inflation and passage of time constitute material change in circumstances justifying enhancement of maintenance.

The applicants, the legally wedded wife and minor daughter of the respondent, were initially granted maintenance of ₹1,500 per month (₹1,000 for the wife and ₹500 for the daughter) via a compromise order in 2014 under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C.

In 2025, the applicants filed an application under Section 146 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) seeking an enhancement of maintenance to ₹5,000 per month, citing inflation, increased costs of living, and the respondent’s alleged annual income of ₹5,00,000 from agriculture and a grocery shop.

The respondent contested this, alleging the wife earned ₹30,000 per month selling vegetables and that he had limited means and an aged mother to support.

On 28.11.2025, the Family Court, Balod, partially allowed the application, enhancing the total maintenance to ₹2,500 (₹1,500 for the wife and ₹1,000 for the daughter).

The applicants moved the High Court in revision, arguing the enhancement was grossly inadequate.

1. Whether the enhancement of maintenance from ₹1,500 to ₹2,500 per month by the Family Court was insufficient or contrary to the material evidence regarding inflation and the respondent's financial capacity.

2. Whether the Family Court's order suffered from any illegality, infirmity, or jurisdictional error warranting interference in a criminal revision.

The Court primarily applied Section 146 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), which provides for the alteration of maintenance allowance upon proof of a change in circumstances.

It further relied on the established legal principle that a husband and father has a legal and moral obligation to maintain his wife and minor daughter to a reasonable extent based on the cost of living and his capacity.

The Court observed that although the applicants failed to produce cogent documentary evidence proving a substantial increase in the respondent's specific income, the lapse of 10 to 12 years since the original maintenance order was significant.

The Court reasoned that the "admitted rise in inflation and cost of living" during this decade-long interval constitutes a "material change in circumstances" under the law.

It found that the Family Court correctly balanced the respondent's moral obligation against the lack of specific evidence of his income.

The High Court concluded that the Family Court's decision to increase the amount to ₹2,500 total was "just and proper" and "reasonable," noting that the applicants did not establish sufficient independent income to justify a higher amount, nor did the respondent prove his claims regarding the wife's earnings.

Consequently, the Court dismissed the criminal revision, affirming the Family Court's order for enhanced maintenance totaling ₹2,500 per month.

The Registrar (Judicial) was directed to transmit the records back to the concerned Family Court for follow-up action.