The Gujarat High Court recently held that although maintenance granted to estranged wife can be increased due to rising costs and changing circumstances, it must remain reasonable and proportionate to the paying spouse’s income and responsibilities and should not encourage the concerned woman to remain idle.

Justice PM Raval made the observations while allowing a husband’s plea challenging a 2024 family court decision that had doubled the previously fixed maintenance amount.

"Maintenance should allow the wife to maintain a reasonable standard of living but should not be excessive or encourage idleness. The amount of permanent alimony awarded to the wife must be befitting the status of the parties and the capacity of spouse to pay maintenance," said the Court in its order of March 3.

The family court had increased the total maintenance from ₹6,500 per month to ₹14,000 per month.

This was after noting that five years had passed since the earlier order in 2019. It had also observed that the cost of living had risen and the wife was no longer earning; her income had been considered at the time of the earlier order in 2019.

The family court also noted that the husband’s monthly income had increased from about ₹20,000 to approximately ₹25,900.

The husband then approached the High Court against the family court's order.

The High Court observed that while fixing maintenance amount, courts must consider the financial capacity of the paying spouse and the needs of the dependents.

By way of background, the family court had in July 2019 passed an order under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (which allows a wife, child, or parent who cannot support themselves to seek monthly financial support) directing the husband to pay ₹2,500 per month to the wife and ₹4,000 per month to their child, totalling ₹6,500.

Subsequently, the wife and child moved an application under Section 127 of the Code seeking enhancement of maintenance on the ground of changed circumstances.

In September 2024, the family court partly allowed the application and increased the maintenance to ₹4,500 per month for the wife and ₹7,000 per month for the child, raising the total to ₹14,000.

The husband moved the High Court against the same.

He argued that his income was approximately ₹25,900 per month according to his income tax returns and that he was also responsible for the care of his 76-year-old mother.

He contended that the enhanced maintenance would require him to pay more than half of his monthly income towards maintenance.

The wife and child opposed this revision plea. The wife argued that she was currently not employed and that the husband’s income had increased from about ₹20,000 per month at the time of the earlier maintenance order.

The High Court noted that the earlier maintenance order had taken into account the wife’s income. In the later proceedings, she stated on affidavit that she was unemployed, and the husband did not produce evidence to show otherwise.

The Court also noted that the wife had completed a Master of Commerce degree, which should be considered while assessing maintenance.

However, the court found that the family court had more than doubled the maintenance amount primarily on the grounds that five years had passed since the earlier order and that inflation had increased.

The High Court stated that these factors alone could not justify such a significant increase without adequate reasoning.

"It is true that considering the rate of inflation, the amount ought to have been enhanced, but merely considering the fact that now wife is not earning and that the inflation rate has gone up and that, five years have elapsed after the earlier maintenance order, the trial Court has doubled the amount of maintenance, however, without giving any palpable reasons therefor and/or without giving any justification for coming to such a conclusion and doubling the amount of maintenance," the High Court said.

Taking into account the husband’s income, his responsibility towards his elderly mother and the needs of the wife and child, the High Court modified the family court’s order.

It reduced the maintenance payable to the wife to ₹5,500 per month and to the child to ₹6,500 per month, bringing the total monthly maintenance to ₹12,000.

The Court directed that the revised amount would be payable from the date on which the application seeking enhancement of maintenance was filed.

Advocates Jaivik Uday Bhatt and Adnirrudhsinh Kushwaha appeared for the husband (applicant).

Advocate AB Gateshaniya represented the wife and child.

Assistant Public Prosecutor Rohan Shah appeared for the State.

[Read Order]