Minor child's right to claim maintenance under Section 125 CrPC cannot be curtailed by parents' mutual divorce agreement.

The petitioner (father) and respondent No. 1 (mother) dissolved their marriage via mutual consent on 09.03.2020.

As per the compromise decree, the petitioner agreed to pay ₹1,500 per month as maintenance to respondent No. 2 (minor daughter).

Previously, a petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. had been filed but was dismissed as withdrawn in National Lok Adalat following the settlement.

Subsequently, the daughter, through her mother, filed for enhancement under Section 127 Cr.P.C. The Family Court, Shimla, enhanced the maintenance to ₹2,000 per month effective from 18.12.2020.

The petitioner challenged this order, primarily arguing that the court lacked jurisdiction because the maintenance was fixed by a mutual consent decree, not an order under Section 125 Cr.P.C.

1. Whether respondent No. 1 (the mother) was a necessary party to the revision petition after the dissolution of marriage.

2. Whether a petition for enhancement under Section 127 Cr.P.C. is maintainable when the original maintenance amount was fixed through a mutual consent divorce decree rather than a contested Section 125 Cr.P.C. order.

3. Whether a minor’s right to maintenance can be permanently restricted by a compromise agreement between parents.

The court primarily applied Sections 125 and 127 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.), which govern the grant and subsequent alteration of maintenance based on changed circumstances.

The court relied on the principle that the statutory right of a minor child to maintenance is independent of any personal agreements between parents.

The court observed that a petition dismissed as withdrawn based on a settlement is deemed to satisfy the jurisdictional requirements for a subsequent enhancement petition under Section 127 Cr.P.C.

The Court rejected the petitioner’s jurisdictional challenge, holding that even if the Section 125 Cr.P.C. petition was withdrawn, the maintenance amount mentioned in the divorce decree was essentially the basis for that withdrawal.

Therefore, the amount is "deemed" to have been passed under the umbrella of Section 125, making Section 127 applicable for enhancement.

The Court reasoned that a child’s right to maintenance cannot be curtailed by a parental "mutual agreement," especially since a minor is legally incapable of entering such contracts.

On the merits, the Court found the petitioner’s claim of joblessness to be false, as he admitted to employment in 2021 and his father was a pensioner with medical reimbursements.

The Court noted that in 2026, ₹1,500 is a "meager amount" and the increase to ₹2,000 is justified by the rising cost of basic amenities.

The Court held that a petition for enhancement is maintainable regardless of whether the original amount was fixed by a decree or a Section 125 order.

The High Court affirmed that the enhancement from ₹1,500 to ₹2,000 is reasonable and justified.

The High Court dismissed the Revision Petition, affirming the Family Court’s order of enhancement and ordered the Trial Court records to be returned.