Lump sum retirement benefits justify refusing maintenance reduction despite a husband’s reduced monthly pension.

The applicant, a former Class-IV employee at NTPC Sipat, was initially ordered on 25.02.2020 to pay monthly maintenance of Rs. 9,000 to his wife (Respondent No. 1) and Rs. 5,000 to his daughter (Respondent No. 2)

Following his retirement in November 2020, the applicant’s income reduced from Rs. 52,745 per month to a pension of approximately Rs. 10,000

The applicant filed an application under Section 127 of the Cr.P.C. seeking modification of the maintenance order, citing his reduced income, the daughter attaining majority, and the fact that the wife had assets from previous land sales

The Family Court, Bilaspur, vide order dated 11.11.2015 [sic], set aside the maintenance for the daughter but refused to reduce the amount payable to the wife, noting that the applicant had received substantial lump-sum retirement benefits

The applicant challenged this refusal before the High Court.

1. Whether a substantial reduction in monthly income due to retirement constitutes a sufficient ground under Section 127 Cr.P.C. to reduce maintenance when lump-sum retirement benefits have been received

2. Whether the maintenance awarded to a daughter who has attained majority is liable to be set aside

Section 127 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.), which allows for the alteration of maintenance orders on proof of a material change in the circumstances of the parties

principle that retirement benefits, including lump-sum terminal dues, are relevant factors in determining the financial capacity of a person to pay maintenance

The High Court evaluated the applicant’s contention that his pension of Rs. 10,000 was insufficient to cover the Rs. 9,000 maintenance

However, the Court concurred with the Family Court’s finding that the applicant’s financial status must be viewed holistically, including the lump-sum retirement benefits (approximately Rs. 40 lakhs) received upon superannuation

The Court rejected the argument that terminal benefits like Provident Fund are protected and should not be treated as a source for maintenance determination

It held that the Family Court correctly balanced the circumstances by setting aside the daughter’s maintenance—as she had attained majority—while maintaining the wife’s allowance, as the applicant possessed sufficient capital liquidity from his retirement dues to fulfill his matrimonial obligations

The court affirmed that while a daughter’s maintenance can be discontinued upon her reaching majority, the husband’s obligation to maintain his wife remains intact if his overall financial position, including retirement corpus, permits the payment

The Registrar (Judicial) was directed to transmit the original records to the concerned Family Court