The Bombay High Court has clarified that a significant rise in the cost of living and a substantial increase in the husband’s income, particularly due to pay commission benefits, constitute valid grounds for enhancing maintenance under Section 127 of the Cr.P.C., even when the child has attained majority. This judgment reinforces the principle that maintenance is not a static entitlement but must evolve with economic realities.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Shaikh Aref, a government servant, challenged two orders of the Family Court, Jalna, which enhanced monthly maintenance for his wife and daughter from Rs. 1,200 and Rs. 1,000 (granted in 2009) to Rs. 6,000 each. The wife and daughter, now aged 44 and 21 respectively, filed a petition under Section 127 of the Cr.P.C. seeking adjustment for inflation and the husband’s increased salary following the 7th Pay Commission.
Procedural History
- 2009: Original maintenance order passed: Rs. 1,200 for wife, Rs. 1,000 for daughter.
- 2010: Revision petition by husband dismissed.
- 2023: Wife filed Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 08 of 2023 under Section 127 Cr.P.C. seeking enhancement.
- April 2025: Family Court granted enhancement to Rs. 6,000 per month for each.
- 2025: Husband filed two Criminal Revision Applications (Nos. 225 and 216 of 2025) challenging the enhancement.
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought quashing of the enhanced maintenance order, arguing that: (1) the daughter had attained majority; (2) she resided with her grandmother in Beed; (3) the husband’s net disposable income was low due to loans and health expenses; and (4) the wife was employed as a tailor and financially independent.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether Section 127 of the Cr.P.C. permits enhancement of maintenance solely on grounds of inflation and increased income, even when the child beneficiary has attained majority and is no longer residing with the claimant.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The husband contended that Section 127 Cr.P.C. does not extend to adult children who are not dependent or incapacitated. He cited his financial burdens - EMIs, medical conditions, and responsibility for a mentally challenged sister - to argue that the enhanced amount was disproportionate. He further argued that the wife’s employment as a tailor rendered her self-sufficient, and that the daughter’s residence with her grandmother negated any need for direct financial support from him.
For the Respondent
The wife and daughter argued that the original maintenance amounts, fixed in 2009, were now wholly inadequate due to rampant inflation and the husband’s increased income. They relied on his admission of receiving Rs. 79,979 per month and emphasized that the daughter, though major, remained unmarried and dependent. They asserted that Section 127 Cr.P.C. is designed precisely to adjust for changed circumstances, regardless of the child’s age, if dependency persists.
The Court's Analysis
The Court emphasized that Section 127 Cr.P.C. is a remedial provision intended to ensure that maintenance remains adequate over time. It rejected the notion that majority automatically terminates the right to maintenance, particularly where the child remains unmarried and economically dependent. The Court noted that the husband did not dispute his salary or the fact of pay commission benefits.
"Section 127 Cr.P.C. contemplates enhancement which by virtue of change in circumstance enables a party to invoke such provision for more and better maintenance. There is definitely rise in prices as well as expenses for living. Therefore, the initial quantum of Rs.1200/- or Rs.1000/- is apparently meager."
The Court held that the Family Court had correctly applied the triple test for maintenance enhancement: (1) existence of changed circumstances, (2) reasonableness of the new quantum, and (3) ability of the payer to meet the obligation. The Court distinguished Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander to clarify that while revisional jurisdiction is narrow, it does not preclude correction of orders that ignore economic realities.
The Court further rejected the husband’s financial hardship claims as speculative, noting that he failed to produce verified bank statements or loan documents. The daughter’s residence with her grandmother was deemed irrelevant, as maintenance is not contingent on cohabitation but on dependency.
The Verdict
The petitioner’s revision applications were dismissed. The Court held that Section 127 Cr.P.C. permits maintenance enhancement based on inflation and increased income, even for adult unmarried daughters, provided dependency continues. The enhanced amount of Rs. 6,000 per month was upheld as reasonable and proportionate.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Maintenance Is Not Frozen in Time
- Practitioners must argue that Section 127 Cr.P.C. is inherently dynamic and must be interpreted in light of economic changes.
- A maintenance order from 10 - 15 years ago is prima facie inadequate today; courts must take judicial notice of inflation.
- Failure to seek enhancement does not waive the right to do so later.
Majority Does Not Terminate Entitlement
- An adult child who is unmarried, unemployed, or pursuing education remains entitled to maintenance under Section 127 Cr.P.C..
- Residence with a third party (e.g., grandparents) does not extinguish the obligation; the focus is on financial dependency, not physical custody.
- Courts must assess need and ability, not age alone.
Income Disclosure Is Critical
- A respondent’s admission of salary (e.g., through pay slips or tax returns) is sufficient to establish capacity to pay.
- Vague claims of loans or health issues without documentary proof will not override clear evidence of increased income.
- Courts may draw adverse inferences against parties who withhold financial records.
