‘Inflation erodes value of maintenance to wife’: Delhi High Court backs 5% annual hike

“It is a matter of judicial notice that the cost of living and inflation increase with the passage of time, resulting in a gradual erosion of the real value of a fixed maintenance amount. A direction providing for a reasonable annual enhancement merely preserves the efficacy of the maintenance awarded and cannot, by itself, be said to be arbitrary or contrary to law,” the court said, adding that a 5 per cent annual increase was not illegal to justify the court’s interference.

The ruling came in a matrimonial dispute where the husband claimed that the family court had overestimated his earning capacity, awarded excessive maintenance and acted beyond its jurisdiction by directing an automatic yearly increase. Rejecting the arguments, the high court upheld the family court’s findings.

Rs 25,000 maintenance, challenge

The couple got married on December 5, 2012, and their son was born on September 19, 2013. The estranged wife alleged that she was subjected to cruelty and dowry demands and was ultimately forced to leave the matrimonial home. She lodged a complaint in this regard with the Crime Against Women Cell on November 17, 2014 and has since been residing with her parents. The husband denied the allegations and said the parties had been living separately since November 2013.

Justice Madhu Jain agreed with the family court’s finding that the husband’s claim of earning only Rs 11,000 per month was ‘wholly unconvincing’. (AI-enhanced image)

During the pendency of the proceedings, the dispute was referred for mediation on August 20, 2025, but no settlement was reached. The family court, after examining the pleadings, income affidavits and evidence, concluded that the husband had sufficient earning capacity to maintain both his wife and child. It directed him to pay Rs 15,000 per month to his wife and Rs 10,000 per month to their son from January 2020, besides providing for a 5 per cent annual increase in the amount.

The husband argued that the family court had wrongly assessed his financial status by relying on properties that actually belonged to his father. He claimed he did not own any immovable property, lived in rented accommodation and that his son had secured admission to school under the economically weaker section (EWS) category, reflecting his limited financial means.

He also maintained that despite completing a hospitality management course, he was earning only Rs 11,000 per month while working in India. According to him, the family court could not have directed an automatic annual enhancement in maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), arguing that any future increase could only be considered under Section 127 after examining changed circumstances.

‘Husband understated income’

Opposing the revision petition, the wife argued that the family court had passed a well-reasoned order based on the evidence. She told the high court that proceedings to recover around Rs 7 lakh in unpaid maintenance for 2023-24 and 2024-25 were pending before the trial court.

Her counsel stated that the husband had deliberately projected his monthly income as only Rs 11,000 despite possessing a degree in hospitality management from Edinburgh, Scotland, and coming from a financially well-off family.

The respondents also relied on previous judicial precedents recognising that maintenance should enable the wife to live according to the family’s financial status and that reasonable periodic enhancement is legally permissible.

‘Wife’s evidence unchallenged’

Justice Jain said the scope of interference in a criminal revision petition is extremely limited and the high court cannot function as an appellate court by reassessing evidence unless there is patent illegality, perversity or jurisdictional error.

“Maintenance awarded under Section 125 CrPC is intended to ensure that the wife and the minor child are able to maintain themselves with dignity and in a manner broadly commensurate with the status enjoyed during the subsistence of the marriage,” he said.

The court noted that the family court had carefully examined the pleadings, income affidavits and evidence before reaching its conclusions. Significantly, it observed that the wife’s evidence remained unchallenged because the husband failed to cross-examine her despite repeated opportunities. As a result, her testimony regarding her financial dependence, the child’s educational expenses, and the husband’s financial status remained unchallenged.

The high court also agreed with the family court’s finding that the husband’s claim of earning only Rs 11,000 per month was “wholly unconvincing”. It pointed out that he admittedly possessed a hospitality management degree from Edinburgh Napier University in Scotland and had failed to produce any convincing material to show that his earning capacity was as limited as claimed. It also noted that during cross-examination, he admitted that his employment corresponded to his educational qualifications.

Preserving value of maintenance amount

While rejecting the husband’s challenge to the annual enhancement, the high court emphasised that maintenance awarded under Section 125 CrPC is intended to ensure that a wife and minor child are able to maintain themselves with dignity and in a manner broadly consistent with the standard of living enjoyed during the marriage.

Observing that inflation steadily reduces the purchasing power of a fixed maintenance amount, the court held that a reasonable annual increase merely protects the effectiveness of the maintenance already awarded.

“In the facts of the present case, an annual enhancement of 5 per cent cannot be said to suffer from any patent illegality warranting interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction,” the court said.

Finding no illegality or serious error in the family court’s February 13, 2020 judgment, the high court dismissed the revision petition and upheld both the maintenance award of Rs 25,000 per month and the 5 per cent annual enhancement.