Maintenance awards must be realistic, account for inflation, and provide periodic enhancement to prevent destitution.

The petitioner-wife married the respondent-husband on 19.09.2009. She alleged cruelty, dowry-related harassment, beatings and that the husband expelled her from the matrimonial home on 19.09.2010. She claimed that the husband, a qualified lecturer, earned approximately ₹50,000 per month and had rental and other income, whereas she had no independent means of maintenance.

On 09.03.2011, she filed proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. seeking ₹20,000 per month. The husband admitted his previous employment as a lecturer but claimed that he had left that job and was earning only ₹6,000 per month as a schoolteacher; he also alleged that the wife had income from two shawl shops.

Interim maintenance of ₹3,000 per month was granted on 07.12.2016. By order dated 29.04.2019, the Family Court awarded ₹5,000 per month from the date of the maintenance petition, after adjusting interim maintenance.

The wife challenged the quantum as meagre and disproportionate. During the revision, the husband was proceeded against ex parte on 17.07.2025. He failed to file the affidavit of assets and liabilities despite repeated directions, while the wife filed an affidavit stating that the husband was earning approximately ₹1,00,000 per month.

1. Whether the petitioner-wife was entitled to maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. in view of the alleged cruelty, separation from the matrimonial home and her lack of independent income?

2. Whether the Family Court’s award of ₹5,000 per month was meagre, disproportionate and liable to be enhanced by considering the husband’s income, the wife’s needs and inflationary costs?

3. Whether periodic enhancement of maintenance could be directed to account for inflation and the prolonged pendency of the proceedings?

The Court applied Section 125 Cr.P.C., which provides a summary remedy to prevent destitution and vagrancy and imposes a legal obligation on an able-bodied husband to maintain a wife unable to maintain herself.

Relying on Fuzlunbi v. K. Khader Vali, (1980) 4 SCC 125, the Court held that maintenance must be reasonable, realistic and not illusory.

Chaturbhuj v. Sita Bai, (2008) 2 SCC 316, and Shamima Farooqui v. Shahid Khan, (2015) 5 SCC 705, were relied upon for the principle that maintenance is a measure of social justice intended to prevent vagrancy and enable the wife to live with reasonable dignity.

Under Shailja v. Khobbanna, (2018) 12 SCC 199, mere capability of the wife to earn is insufficient to deny maintenance unless she is actually earning.

The factors identified in Rajnesh v. Neha, (2021) 2 SCC 324, including the parties’ status, reasonable needs, actual income, liabilities, standard of living and inflation, were applied in determining quantum.

The Court further relied on Kiran Jyot Maini v. Anish Pramod Patel, (2024) 13 SCC 66, Parvin Kumar Jain v. Anju Jain, (2025) 2 SCC 227, and Deepa Joshi v. Gaurav Joshi, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 597, for a fair and balanced award ensuring the wife a decent standard of living without unduly penalising the husband.

Rakhi Sadhukhan v. Raja Sadhukhan, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1259, was relied upon for granting a 5% enhancement every two years to address inflationary costs.

The Court found that the wife’s evidence established persistent cruelty, including taunting, dowry-related harassment and physical violence, which compelled her to live separately. Her evidence also showed that she had no independent income or property; the allegation that she earned from her father’s shawl shops was not proved.

In contrast, the husband’s employment as a lecturer and salary of ₹50,000 per month were supported by salary records and witness testimony, and were admitted in cross-examination. His assertion that he subsequently earned only ₹6,000 per month was unsupported by evidence.

The Court held that the Family Court had failed to account for the husband’s proved earning capacity, the wife’s reasonable needs, the substantial rise in living costs and the fifteen-year pendency of the proceedings.

The husband’s failure to file the directed assets-and-liabilities affidavit justified an adverse inference regarding his present financial position.

Since ₹5,000 per month remained static from 2011 onwards and had become illusory in real terms, the Court enhanced the amount in graded stages and directed a further 5% increase every two years, balancing the wife’s entitlement to dignified maintenance against the husband’s financial capacity.

The wife was held entitled to maintenance of ₹5,000 per month from 09.03.2011 to 08.03.2016; ₹7,000 per month from 09.03.2016 to 08.03.2021; and ₹9,000 per month from 09.03.2021 to 08.04.2026, followed by 5% enhancement every two years from 09.04.2026 onwards.

The husband was directed to pay the arrears after adjusting interim maintenance already paid, within four weeks.

No order as to costs was made.