Maintenance enhancement under Section 127 CrPC upheld considering inflation and husband’s stable income.

The applicant (husband) challenged an order dated 03.03.2026 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Bilaspur, in Misc. Criminal Case No. 670/2023

Initially, the non-applicants (wife and minor son) were granted maintenance under Section 125 CrPC.

Subsequent applications under Section 127 CrPC saw the maintenance amount enhanced incrementally from ₹2,300 to ₹6,000, and later to ₹7,500 in 2022

The non-applicants filed a fresh application under Section 127 CrPC seeking an enhancement to ₹60,000, citing the husband’s salary as a Government Headmaster (₹48,827/month), alleged business/rental income of approximately ₹70,000/month, and the rising educational and medical expenses of the minor child

The husband denied the additional income and alleged the wife earned ₹30,000/month as a practicing advocate.

The Family Court partially allowed the application, enhancing the total maintenance to ₹12,500 (₹5,000 for the wife and ₹7,500 for the child)

1. Whether the Family Court’s order enhancing the maintenance amount from ₹7,500 to ₹12,500 under Section 127 CrPC was illegal, arbitrary, or disproportionate to the husband’s financial capacity.

Section 127 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), which provides for the alteration or enhancement of maintenance allowance on proof of a change in circumstances of the parties

underlying principles of Section 125 CrPC regarding the husband's obligation to maintain his wife and child based on his means and their needs

The High Court observed that the Family Court reached its decision after a comprehensive review of the witness statements and the evidence on record

The Court noted that the husband is a government employee with a stable monthly salary of ₹48,827

While the husband contended that the wife’s income as an advocate and his own financial liabilities made the enhancement unfeasible, the Court found that the Family Court had appropriately balanced these factors against the rising cost of living and the educational requirements of the minor child

The High Court concluded that there was no "illegality or infirmity" in the Family Court’s assessment that warranted interference under its revisional jurisdiction

The enhancement of maintenance to ₹12,500 per month was upheld as reasonable given the husband’s income and the needs of the non-applicants

The Court directed the transmission of the order to the trial court for compliance