The purpose of maintenance is to prevent poverty or vagrancy, not to punish the spouse: HC

The Delhi High Court has held that the amount of maintenance once fixed for the wife under Section 125(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure cannot be regarded as a blanket liability on the husband for all time to come.

The amount thus fixed “can be varied by either side. It can be increased or decreased depending on the changed circumstances,” said Judge Chandra Dhari Singh.

The court on Friday dismissed the application of a man's wife seeking enhancement of maintenance from Rs 3,000 to Rs 35,000 per month on the ground that the circumstances alleged by her had already existed at the time of passing of the original maintenance order in 2017 and, therefore, proof of such circumstances could not form a basis for modification of the quantum of maintenance under sub-section (1) of Section 127 CrPC.

“The intention behind the award of interim/permanent maintenance is to ensure that the dependent spouse does not fall into poverty or vagrancy due to the breakdown of the marriage, and not as a punishment for the other spouse,” the court explained.

In order to determine the appropriate amount of maintenance to be paid, the husband's financial capacity, his actual income and reasonable expenses for his own living and the dependent family members he is legally obliged to support, as well as any liabilities, must be taken into account, it said.

“It is established law that a careful balance and equity must be struck between all relevant factors. The determination of maintenance in marital disputes depends on the financial situation of the defendant and the standard of living to which the revisionist was accustomed in her marital home,” the court explained.

The wife alleged that she was thrown out of her matrimonial home within months of her marriage in 2008 as she could not meet the dowry demand of Rs 10 lakh. She claimed that her husband worked as a manager of a flour mill and earned Rs 82,000 a month.

The husband, however, claimed that his wife was separated of her own accord and that the allegations of abuse and demand for dowry were nothing but blackmail tactics. He claimed that he had only passed fifth standard and was working as a taxi driver earning Rs 15,000 a month. The wife, on the other hand, was a college graduate and capable enough to work and support herself. He also added that he lived in a rented house and had to take care of his elderly parents.

In the present case, the court said, there was no evidence that circumstances had changed that would justify an increase in maintenance. The wife had also not provided any evidence that her husband had earned enough to warrant a higher amount.

Published on June 11, 2022, 12:52 IST