Orissa High Court: In a matrimonial appeal by the husband against Family Court’s decision, whereby the maintenance payable to the respondent-wife was enhanced from Rs. 1,500 per month to Rs. 10,000 per month, on the ground that the enhancement was beyond the relief sought by the wife and that, the Family Court failed to properly assess his financial liabilities, the Division Bench of B. P. Routray and Chittaranjan Dash, JJ. dismissed the appeal reiterating that the Court is not debarred from awarding the amount exceeding the claimed amount as judicial discretion must be exercised to provide a fair and just maintenance amount, considering the dependent’s actual needs and the payer’s financial capability, even if the claim was initially understated.
The Court noted that the wife, aged 63 years, is an elderly woman with no independent source of income. Perusing Section 25(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, the Court underscored that the Court has the power to vary, modify, or rescind maintenance orders if there is a material change in the circumstances of either party. The Court stated that the phrase “at the instance of either party” mandates that a formal application must be made, and judicial discretion must be exercised within the framework of the claim and evidence provided. The Court also explained that Section 127 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC), permits alteration of maintenance based on changes in financial circumstances. Section 127 CrPC reinforces this position in the context of orders of maintenance under Section 125 of the CrPC, stating that “on proof of a change in the circumstances of any person receiving maintenance, the Magistrate may make such alteration, increase or decrease in the allowance as he thinks fit.”
The Court reiterated that-
“Courts can modify maintenance upon proof of material change in circumstances. While Courts have the power to modify maintenance based on changed circumstances, this power is not suo motu and must be exercised only on the application of either party.”
Regarding the question that whether Court can award maintenance exceeding the claimed amount, the Court referred to Kamaldeep Kaur v. Balwinder Singh, 2005 SCC OnLine P&H 417, wherein, the Punjab and Haryana High Court observed that, the amount of maintenance should be such that a wife is able to maintain herself decently and with dignity. If after considering the material placed before the Magistrate, the Magistrate thinks that a particular amount is a reasonable amount, he is required to award the said amount as maintenance, and cannot refuse to grant the said amount merely because the claimant has not claimed such an amount in her application. Once the legislation has cast duty on the Court to award just and reasonable amount of maintenance in the facts and circumstances of a case, the same cannot be denied on mere technicalities i.e. the claimants had not claimed the said amount in their application.
In Kamaldeep (supra), it was held that there is no specific restriction under Section 125 of the CrPC that the Magistrate cannot award more than the amount claimed in the petition.
Further, the Court noted that in G. Amrutha Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh1, while addressing a similar maintenance claim where the wife initially sought a monthly maintenance of Rs. 30,000 (Rs. 20,000 for herself and Rs. 10,000 for her minor child), the Trial Court enhanced this amount to Rs. 50,000 per month, significantly exceeding the wife’s original request.
In the matter at hand, the Court refused to accept the husband’s contention that being aged 72 years he had substantial expenses, including Rs. 10,000 per month on medical treatment, on the ground that he had not provided any documentary evidence (such as medical bills, household expense records, or educational expenses) to substantiate these alleged liabilities.
The Court also noted that the wife was unable to specifically claim an appropriate amount in her petition as she was unaware of the fact that the husband was drawing Rs. 50,000 per month as pension.
The Court said that the amount granted by the Family Court was less than 25% of the husband’s pension. Hence, the Court held that the maintenance awarded was just and proper, ensuring that the wife received a fair and reasonable amount for her sustenance. The Court added that the judicial discretion must be exercised to provide a fair and just maintenance amount, considering the dependent’s actual needs and the payer’s financial capability, even if the claim was initially understated. The enhancement, in the instant case, was warranted based on necessity rather than technicalities of the original plea. The Court pointed out that though there were procedural lapses in granting an amount beyond the pleadings, the ultimate finding of the Family Court was justified and did not warrant reversal.
Hence, the Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the Family Court’s decision.
[Nirmal Karnakar v. Parbati, Matrimonial Appeal No. 133 of 2024, decided on: 14-02-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the appellant: AP Bose Adv.
For the respondent: Sadananda Sahoo Adv.
Buy Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 HERE
1. Crl.R.C. No. 80 of 2023.