SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Ori) 1137

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
B.P.ROUTRAY, CHITTARANJAN DASH, JJ.
Nirmal Karnakar – Appellant
Versus
Parbati @ Parbati Karnakar – Respondent
MATA No. 133 of 2024
Decided On : 14-02-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : A.P. Bose
For the Respondent: Sadananda Sahoo

The court can modify maintenance amounts over claimed amounts based on a proven change in circumstances.

Headnote:In this matter concerning maintenance, the Court analyzed Section 25(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, which grants the court power to vary maintenance orders upon proof of a material change in circumstances. The Family Court had enhanced the maintenance from ₹1,500 to ₹10,000 without proper assessment of the appellant-husband's financial liabilities, yet the findings emphasized the necessity based on the respondent's financial needs against the husband's earnings. The main issue revolved around whether the court exceeded its jurisdiction by awarding more than what was claimed by the respondent. The Court concluded that while procedural errors were noted in the enhancement of the maintenance, the awarded amount was deemed just and reasonable based on the financial capabilities and needs of both parties. Ultimately, the Matrimonial Appeal was dismissed, and the order confirming ₹10,000 maintenance was upheld verbatim.

Table of Content
1. the appeal arises from a decision regarding maintenance. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. judicial discretion in maintenance orders based on change in circumstances. (Para 5)
3. the awarded maintenance is justified despite procedural lapses. (Para 6 , 7)
4. the appeal is dismissed with the maintenance amount upheld. (Para 8)

JUDGMENT :

1. The present appeal arises out of the judgment dated 21.02.2024 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Rourkela, in Civil Proceeding No. 132 of 2021, whereby the maintenance payable to the respondent-wife was enhanced from Rs. 1,500 per month to Rs. 10,000 per month. The Appellant-Husband has challenged this order on the ground that the enhancement was beyond the relief sought by the Respondent and that, the Family Court failed to properly assess his financial liabilities.

2. The Respondent-Wife, aged 63 years, is an elderly woman with no independent source of income. She is entitled to limited government benefits, including Rs. 500 per month under a government scheme and 5 kg of free rice, which she has been admittedly receiving. However, these benefits are insufficient to meet her daily living and medical expenses. Given her advanced age, she requires regular medical care and incurs additional household expenses.

3. Section 25 (2) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 , reads as follows –

“(2) If the court is satisfied that there is a change in the circumstances of either party at any time after it has made an order under sub-section (1), it may at the instance of either party, vary, modify or rescind any such order in such manner as the court may deem just.”

Under this section, the Court has the power to vary, modify, or rescind maintenance orders if there is material change in circumstances of either party. 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. Similarly, Section 127 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 , 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 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.” It is well established 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.

4. The Punjab and Haryana High Court, while deciding the issue of awarding maintenance exceeding the claimed amount, in the matter of Kamaldeep Kaur and Anr. vs. Balwinder Singh, 2005 SCC OnLine P&H 417, has held that –

“21. Now the question which requires determination is whether the Magistrate is competent to award the maintenance more than the amount claimed by the applicant in his maintenance application. Section 125 Cr. P.C. provides that a Magistrate of the first class may, upon proof of such neglect or refusal, order such person to make a monthly allowance for the maintenance of his wife or such child, father or mother, at such monthly rate, as such Magistrate thinks fit, and to pay the same to such person as the Magistrate may from time to time direct (emphasis supplied). Under this provision, it is the duty of the Magistrate to provide just maintenance to the deserted wife or destitute child. 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 in my opinion, he cannot refuse to grant the said amount merely because the claimant has not claimed such

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top