Inflation and periodic change in circumstances justify enhancement of maintenance awarded under Section 127 Cr.P.C.

The petitioner-husband challenged an order dated 31.07.2024 passed by the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Sarkaghat

Initially, in 2012, the Judicial Magistrate First Class had granted maintenance under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. at Rs. 5,000/- total (Rs. 2,000 for the wife and Rs. 1,500 each for two children)

In August 2021, the respondents filed for enhancement under Section 127 of the Cr.P.C.

The Trial Court enhanced the maintenance to a total of Rs. 20,000/- per month (Rs. 10,000 for the wife and Rs. 5,000 each for the children)

The petitioner contested this, citing a monthly income of Rs. 44,000/-, liabilities toward his mother, and allegations that the wife had neglected him

1. Whether the grounds for living separately and the initial neglect of the wife can be re-adjudicated in a petition for enhancement under Section 127 Cr.P.C.

2. Whether the enhancement of maintenance from Rs. 5,000/- to Rs. 20,000/- after a period of 11 years was excessive or justified given the financial standing of the parties

Section 127 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.), which governs the alteration in allowance on proof of a change in circumstances

The court noted that once a valid reason for living separately is determined in proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C., it constitutes res judicata for the purpose of Section 127 proceedings

The court also acknowledged the principles of judicial review in revision petitions regarding "material irregularity, illegality or perversity"

The Court observed that since the 2012 maintenance order was accepted by the petitioner, the merits of why the wife lives separately cannot be re-opened in a Section 127 petition; the "valid reason" for separate living already stands determined

Regarding the quantum, the Court noted that a gap of 11 years had passed since the original order, during which substantial "inflation in prices affecting livelihood and education" occurred

The petitioner’s claim of financial hardship was undermined by his admission that his father is a retired Army personnel receiving pension, negating the claim that the petitioner alone supports his parents

The Court found that an enhancement to Rs. 20,000/- out of a salary of Rs. 44,000/- was reasonable and not "highly excessive"

The Court answered that the enhancement was justified by the change in circumstances (inflation and passage of 11 years) and the petitioner’s stable income

The petitioner was granted liberty to file a fresh application under BNSS/Cr.P.C. should his circumstances change post-retirement, but current enhancement was upheld