The Chhattisgarh High Court has clarified that enhancement of maintenance under Section 127 CrPC cannot rest on generalized assumptions about inflation or presumed increases in earning capacity. The judgment underscores the necessity of evidentiary grounding in judicial orders affecting financial obligations, particularly for vulnerable litigants in tribal communities.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The applicant, Dasrathi S/o Khuti Maurya, and respondent No.1, Smt. Rukmani, were married under Muriya tribal customs in 2004 - 2005. After a family dispute in 2014, Rukmani left the matrimonial home voluntarily and has since resided with her parents. There is no allegation or proof of cruelty or domestic violence against the applicant. The applicant, a daily wage labourer, later contracted a second marriage, which is acknowledged as customary within their community. The respondents, including two minor children, filed an application under Section 125 CrPC for maintenance, which was granted. Subsequently, they filed an application under Section 127 CrPC seeking enhancement of maintenance, which the Family Court allowed.
Procedural History
- 2014: Original maintenance order passed at Rs.400/month for respondent No.1 and Rs.300/month each for the two minor children
- 2021: Application under Section 127 CrPC filed for enhancement
- 13.03.2024: Family Court enhanced maintenance to Rs.1,200/month for respondent No.1, Rs.1,000/month for respondent No.2, and Rs.800/month for respondent No.3
- 2024: Criminal revision filed before Chhattisgarh High Court challenging the enhancement
Relief Sought
The applicant sought quashing of the enhanced maintenance order, arguing that the Family Court ignored his limited income, his obligations toward his aged parents and second family, and the respondent’s independent income from farming and subsidized rations.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether Section 127 CrPC permits enhancement of maintenance based solely on presumptions of increased cost of living and presumed rise in earning capacity, or whether it requires concrete evidence of a material change in circumstances affecting the needs of the claimant or the capacity of the payer.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant
Learned counsel argued that the Family Court erred by relying on speculative assumptions rather than evidence. The applicant’s income is irregular, averaging Rs.350 - 400 per day with inconsistent work. He supports his aged parents, second wife, and children from that income. The respondent, a farmer, has her own livelihood and receives subsidized rations. The Court failed to consider Section 125(4), which disentitles a wife to maintenance if she refuses to live with her husband without sufficient cause. The judgment in Jabsir Kaur Sehgal v. District Judge, Dehradun was cited to emphasize that maintenance must be reasonable and proportionate to means.
For the Respondent
Counsel contended that the Family Court properly assessed the passage of time since the original order, the growth of the children, and the rising cost of essentials. The enhancement was justified as a necessary adjustment to ensure the children’s education and basic needs were met. No legal error was committed in the appreciation of evidence.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the reasoning of the Family Court and found that while the order referenced increased cost of living and the children’s growing needs, it did not cite any documentary evidence - such as school fees, medical expenses, or inflation indices - to substantiate these claims. The Court noted that the Family Court presumed the respondent’s earning capacity had increased because she was a "mason," despite no evidence of her engaging in masonry work. The applicant’s financial constraints were minimally addressed.
"The enhancement of maintenance cannot be based on abstract notions of inflation or unverified assumptions about earning capacity. There must be a demonstrable nexus between the claimed increase in needs and the actual financial capacity of the person liable to pay."
The Court held that Section 127 CrPC requires a judicial determination grounded in facts, not conjecture. While the law permits modification due to changed circumstances, such changes must be proven, not presumed. The Family Court’s reliance on generalized economic trends without specific evidence rendered the enhancement arbitrary and legally unsustainable.
The Verdict
The revision was dismissed. The Court held that while the enhancement was procedurally valid, the reasoning was legally insufficient. However, since no illegality or jurisdictional error was found warranting interference, the order was allowed to stand. The judgment clarifies that Section 127 CrPC demands evidentiary substantiation for any enhancement, not judicial speculation.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Evidentiary Burden Is On The Applicant For Enhancement
- Practitioners must now lead concrete evidence - receipts, school records, wage slips, ration card details - to prove increased needs or changed financial circumstances
- Mere assertions about inflation or children’s growth are insufficient without supporting documentation
Presumptions About Earning Capacity Are Invalid
- Courts cannot assume increased income based on occupation alone; actual earnings must be proven
- A respondent claiming maintenance must disclose their own income sources, including agricultural or government benefits
Section 125(4) Remains a Viable Defence
- Where a spouse leaves the matrimonial home voluntarily without cause, maintenance entitlement may be denied or reduced
- Advocates should raise Section 125(4) as a threshold defence in cases involving desertion, especially in tribal or customary marriage contexts
