Maintenance Order May Validly Include Automatic Annual Enhancement to Offset Inflation and Cost of Living

In brief

The question

1. Whether the Family Court erred in its assessment of the petitioner’s earning capacity and financial status for the purpose of quantifying maintenance

The court held

The Court answered both issues in the negative, holding that the Family Court’s findings were based on a valid appreciation of evidence and that a reasonable annual enhancement is legally sound

It also directed

The Revision Petition was dismissed, and the order dated 13.02.2020 directing maintenance of ₹25,000/- total per month plus 5% annual increase was upheld

01Facts

The petitioner (husband) and respondent No. 1 (wife) married on 05.12.2012, and had a child (respondent No. 2) in 2013

pp. 1-2

Following matrimonial disputes and allegations of cruelty, the wife began residing at her parental home in 2014

p. 2

The Family Court, vide order dated 13.02.2020, directed the petitioner to pay ₹15,000/- per month to the wife and ₹10,000/- to the child, with a 5% annual enhancement

p. 2, 4

The petitioner challenged this order, claiming his income was only ₹11,000/- per month despite a degree in Hospitality Management from Scotland, and argued that the automatic annual enhancement was legally impermissible under Section 125

pp. 5-6

02Issues

i.1. Whether the Family Court erred in its assessment of the petitioner’s earning capacity and financial status for the purpose of quantifying maintenance

p. 8

ii.2. Whether the direction for an automatic annual enhancement of 5% in the maintenance amount is permissible under Section 125 Cr.P.C.

p. 9

03Law Applied

Section 125 of the Cr.P.C., which imposes a moral and legal duty on a person with sufficient means to maintain their spouse and children

p. 4

Jasbir Kaur Sehgal v. District Judge Dehradun, establishing that maintenance must ensure the wife lives in reasonable comfort according to the status she enjoyed during marriage

pp. 2-3

Pyla Mutyalamma v. Pyla Suri Demudu and Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander, which limit High Court interference to cases of patent illegality or jurisdictional error, prohibiting the re-appreciation of evidence

p. 8

Provisions in the judgment · 4 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 125 Section 127 Section 397 Section 401

04Reasoning

The Court found that the petitioner’s claim of earning only ₹11,000/- per month was "unbelievable" given his international educational qualifications in Hospitality Management from Scotland

p. 4, 9

The Court noted that the petitioner failed to cross-examine respondent No. 1, leaving her testimony regarding his family’s sound financial status—including the ownership of immovable properties and the gift of an SUV—unrebutted

p. 3, 8

On the issue of the 5% annual increment, the Court reasoned that such a direction is a proactive measure to counter inflation and the rising cost of living, ensuring the "real value" of maintenance is preserved without forcing the parties to litigate under Section 127 Cr.P.C. for every minor adjustment

pp. 9-10

05Holding

The Court answered both issues in the negative, holding that the Family Court’s findings were based on a valid appreciation of evidence and that a reasonable annual enhancement is legally sound

pp. 9-10

The Revision Petition was dismissed, and the order dated 13.02.2020 directing maintenance of ₹25,000/- total per month plus 5% annual increase was upheld

p. 10

LawLens.Delhi High Court

Original Court PDF