The Chhattisgarh High Court recently dismissed a criminal revision challenging a Family Court order that enhanced monthly maintenance under Section 146 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNSS). The Court held that the lapse of over a decade and rising inflation constituted a material change in circumstances, justifying a reasonable enhancement of maintenance, even in the absence of documentary evidence showing increased income of the respondent.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The applicants, Smt. Fuleshwari Patel (wife) and Ku. Twinkle Patel (minor daughter), sought enhancement of maintenance under Section 146 BNSS from Rajendra Kumar Patel, the respondent and husband/father. Their marriage, solemnized 15 years prior, had earlier been subject to a maintenance order under Section 125 CrPC in 2014, which granted Rs. 1,000 per month to the wife and Rs. 500 per month to the daughter, based on a compromise.
Key Facts
- Marriage and Separation: The applicants alleged that the respondent had deserted them without sufficient cause, compelling them to live separately.
- Financial Hardship: The applicants claimed they were unable to meet basic needs such as food, medical care, and education due to rising inflation over the past decade.
- Respondent’s Financial Status: The respondent was alleged to earn approximately Rs. 5,00,000 annually from agricultural land and a grocery shop.
- Applicants’ Financial Status: The respondent contended that the wife earned Rs. 30,000 per month by selling vegetables and owned a permanent house, making her capable of self-maintenance.
- Existing Maintenance Order: The earlier order under Section 125 CrPC granted Rs. 1,500 per month (Rs. 1,000 to the wife and Rs. 500 to the daughter).
- Claim for Enhancement: The applicants sought Rs. 5,000 per month (Rs. 2,500 each), citing financial hardship and the respondent’s sufficient means.
Procedural History
- 09.09.2014: Maintenance order under Section 125 CrPC granted Rs. 1,500 per month (Cr.M.J.C. No. 12/2014).
- Application for Enhancement: The applicants filed an application under Section 146 BNSS seeking enhancement to Rs. 5,000 per month.
- 28.11.2025: Family Court, Balod, partly allowed the application and enhanced maintenance to Rs. 2,500 per month (Rs. 1,500 for the wife and Rs. 1,000 for the daughter).
- Present Revision: The applicants filed the present criminal revision (CRR No. 485 of 2026) challenging the Family Court’s order.
Relief Sought
The applicants sought enhancement of maintenance to Rs. 5,000 per month, arguing that the existing amount was grossly inadequate to meet their basic needs due to inflation and the respondent’s financial capacity.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether the lapse of time and rise in inflation, without cogent documentary evidence of increased income of the respondent, constituted a material change in circumstances justifying enhancement of maintenance under Section 146 BNSS.
Arguments Presented
For the Applicants
- The impugned order was contrary to facts, law, and circumstances, as the Family Court failed to consider the severe financial hardship faced by the applicants.
- The maintenance awarded was grossly inadequate and did not correspond with the present cost of living.
- The respondent had deserted the applicants without sufficient cause, and this fact was overlooked by the Family Court.
- The respondent’s claims regarding the applicants’ income were unsubstantiated, and no cogent evidence was produced to support them.
- The maintenance granted to the minor daughter was insufficient for her sustenance.
For the Respondent
- The respondent denied the allegations, contending that the wife earned Rs. 30,000 per month and owned a permanent house, making her capable of self-maintenance.
- The respondent argued that he had limited income from agricultural land and bore the responsibility of maintaining his family and aged mother.
- The existing maintenance order was sufficient, and the applicants had concealed material facts regarding their financial status.
The Court's Analysis
The High Court, after perusing the impugned order and submissions, observed that the Family Court had considered the lapse of 10-12 years since the earlier order and the admitted rise in inflation and cost of living as material changes in circumstances. The Court noted that while the applicants had not produced cogent documentary evidence to establish a substantial increase in the respondent’s income, the passage of time and inflation were sufficient grounds for a reasonable enhancement of maintenance.
The Court emphasized that the respondent, as the husband and father, had a legal and moral obligation to maintain his wife and minor daughter. The Family Court’s decision to enhance the maintenance to Rs. 2,500 per month was held to be just and proper, taking into account the financial needs of the applicants and the respondent’s capacity to pay.
"The lapse of about 10 - 12 years since the earlier order and the admitted rise in inflation and cost of living constitute a material change in circumstances. The respondent, being the husband and father, has a legal as well as moral obligation to maintain his wife and minor daughter, and accordingly, the enhancement of maintenance to a reasonable extent is just and proper."
The High Court concluded that the Family Court had not committed any illegality, infirmity, or jurisdictional error in its order, and thus, the revision was devoid of merit.
The Verdict
The criminal revision was dismissed. The High Court upheld the Family Court’s order dated 28.11.2025, which enhanced the monthly maintenance to Rs. 2,500 (Rs. 1,500 for the wife and Rs. 1,000 for the daughter). No further enhancement was granted, and the original record was directed to be transmitted to the Family Court within one week for compliance.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Inflation and Lapse of Time Constitute Material Change
- Courts may consider inflation and the passage of time as sufficient grounds for enhancing maintenance, even in the absence of documentary evidence showing increased income of the respondent.
- Practitioners should emphasize the financial hardship faced by dependents due to rising costs of living, as this can justify a revision of maintenance orders.
Moral and Legal Obligations of Maintenance
- The judgment reinforces that husbands and fathers have both legal and moral obligations to maintain their wives and children, and this obligation persists irrespective of minor deficiencies in evidence.
- Applicants can rely on this precedent to argue for reasonable enhancement of maintenance where the respondent has sufficient means, even if exact income details are not documented.
Limits of Appellate Interference
- Appellate courts are reluctant to interfere with orders of lower courts unless there is a clear illegality, infirmity, or jurisdictional error.
- Practitioners must ensure that all material facts, such as desertion or financial hardship, are clearly established before lower courts to avoid dismissal of revisions.
