By observing that the circumstances alleged by the revisionist/ wife already existed at the time of passing the original maintenance judgment. Thus, proof of such circumstances cannot form the basis for altering the amount of maintenance under sub- section (1) of Section 127 Cr.P.C, the Delhi High Court dismissed the instant revision petition preferred under Sections 397 and 401 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
A Single Bench of Justice Chandra Dhari Singh dismissed the present revision petition instituted under Sections 397 and 401 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking enhancement of quantum of maintenance awarded through judgment dated November 27, 2017 passed by the Principal Judge of Family Court at Delhi, by observing that the amount of maintenance once fixed under section 125(1) Cr.P.C. is not something which can be taken to be a blanket liability for all times to come. It is subject to variation on both sides. It can be increased or decreased as per the altered circumstances.
The present revision petition was instituted under Section 397 and 401 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 by the revisionist seeking enhancement of quantum of maintenance awarded through judgment dated November 27, 2017 passed by the Principal Judge of Family Court at Delhi.
Factual background of the case was such that the marriage between the revisionist and the respondent was solemnized on July 11, 2008. Thereafter, the revisionist alleged that she was abused, insulted and ill treated from bringing insufficient dowry by the respondent/ husband and his family members. It was also alleged by the revisionist that the respondent was an alcoholic and had illicit relationships with other women. Further the revisionist stated that the respondent and his parents demanded a cash amount of Rs. 10 lakhs for supporting the business of the husband/respondent. Since the revisionist failed to bring dowry of Rs. 10 lakhs, she was thrown out of her matrimonial home on October 28, 2008.
In pursuance of the aforesaid circumstances, the revisionist filed a petition under Article 125 of the Cr.P.C. for her maintenance, as she was not able to maintain herself and was totally dependent on her parents. Through judgment dated November 27, 2017 , the petition under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. was allowed by the Principal Judge, whereby the respondent was directed to pay litigation cost of Rs. 11,000 /- and maintenance as well.
Aggrieved by the inadequate amount of maintenance, the revisionist preferred the instant petition seeking enhancement of the maintenance amount.
After hearing the submissions of the parties, the Court stated that there was no dispute with respect to the fact that marriage between the revisionist and the respondent was solemnised, however due to some differences, they both started living separately and consequently, the revisionist filed a petition under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. The Court further observed that the objection of Section 125 of Cr.P.C. is to prevent vagrancy and destitution of wife, minor children and parents. In view of the same, the Court re- produced the reasons that were recorded while granting maintenance under the impugned judgment dated November 27, 2017.
The intent behind granting interim/permanent alimony is to ensure that the dependent spouse is not reduced to destitution or vagrancy on account of the failure of the marriage, and not as punishment to the other spouse. In furtherance of the same, the Court noted that the financial capacity of the husband, his actual income with reasonable expenses for his own maintenance, and dependent family members whom he is obliged to maintain under law and liabilities if any, would be required to be taken into consideration in order to determine the appropriate quantum of maintenance to be paid. The test of determination of maintenance in matrimonial disputes depends on the financial status of the respondent and the standard of living that the revisionist was accustomed to in her matrimonial home, the Court remarked.
Further, the Court took into account Section 127 of the Cr.P.C., which provides alteration in allowance. It stipulates for an increase or decrease of the allowance consequent on a change in the circumstances of the parties at the time of the application for alteration of the original order of maintenance. It must be shown that there has been a change in the word “circumstance” as appearing in Section 127 Cr.P.C has been interpreted by observing that circumstances as contemplated in Section 127 (1) Cr.P.C must include financial circumstances and in that view, the inquiry as to the change of circumstances must extend to a change of financial circumstances.
In addition to the same, the Court opined that change of circumstances referred to in sub-section (1) of Section 27 Cr.P.C. is a comprehensive which also includes change of circumstances of husband.The amount of maintenance once fixed under section 125(1) Cr.P.C. is not something which can be taken to be a blanket liability for all times to come. It is subject to variation on both sides. It can be increased or decreased as per the altered circumstances, the Court submitted.
Reverting back to the facts of the present case, the Court was of the view that the circumstances alleged by the revisionist/ wife already existed at the time of passing the original maintenance judgment. Thus, proof of such circumstances cannot form the basis for altering the amount of maintenance under sub- section (1) of Section 127 Cr.P.C, the Court noted.
It was also stated that the revisionist submitted that the respondent was earning Rs 82,000/- per month. However, the Court noted that she failed to produce any documents to determine his precise income and to establish that was earning such a handsome amount of money. Thus, in light of the aforesaid observations, the Court declined to intervene with the impugned judgment passed by the Principal Judge as it did not find any legal infirmity in the same. Accordingly, the instant revision petition was dismissed.
Case name: JYOTI @ GAYATRI v. ROHIT SHARMA @ SANTOSH SHARMA
Picture Source : https://www.vakilno1.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/maintenance.jpg
