A Family Court in Prayagraj built an automatic 10% yearly increase into a wife’s monthly maintenance, and the Allahabad High Court has not only upheld it but said it was surprised the idea had not occurred to the High Court itself, noting that a fixed sum loses its worth as prices rise.
Prayagraj: The Allahabad High Court has dismissed a husband’s criminal revision against a Family Court order that granted his wife monthly maintenance under Section 125 CrPC with a 10% increase every year, describing the annual enhancement as an “innovative thought” [Rakesh Kumar v. State of U.P. and Another].
Justice Lakshmi Kant Shukla found no reason to interfere with the approach adopted by the Family Court, observing that with prices rising by about 10% a year, a fixed maintenance amount would over time leave the dependent wife and children unable to meet their basic needs.
Background of the case
The Family Court at Prayagraj directed the husband to pay Rs 3,000 a month from the date of the maintenance application and Rs 4,000 a month from the date of its judgment, with the amount to go up by 10% every year.
In his revision, the husband did not dispute the Family Court’s findings on the marriage or on the wife’s inability to support herself. His challenge was confined to the yearly 10% enhancement, which he argued had no legal basis.
The wife and the State opposed the revision. They argued that a built-in increase would spare the wife and children the need to keep returning to court for enhancement, a significant advantage given the heavy pendency of cases, and that the Family Court’s approach deserved to be welcomed.
ALSO READ: Unemployment Is No Escape, PM Awas House Cannot Replace Maintenance: Allahabad HC
Why a fixed sum falls short
Agreeing with the wife and the State, the High Court noted that Rs 4,000 a month “may only fulfil minimum basic needs”. With the cost of living rising at roughly 10% annually, it reasoned, a maintenance figure frozen at the date of judgment would steadily erode, leaving the dependants struggling to cover even essentials in the years that follow.
Commending the Family Court for building the increase into its order, the High Court remarked:
“It is very surprising that such an innovative thought has not come to the mind of this Court. Accordingly, the steps taken by the Trial Court deserve to be welcomed and is appreciated.”
The revision was accordingly dismissed, leaving the Family Court’s order, including the annual 10% increase, intact.
Why the ruling matters
Maintenance orders under Section 125 CrPC are ordinarily fixed sums, and a wife whose needs outgrow the award must apply afresh under Section 127 to have it altered, often waiting years for a decision. An automatic annual escalation of the kind upheld here addresses inflation at the outset and reduces fresh rounds of litigation. The ruling is that of a single judge in revisional jurisdiction, and the question whether such escalation clauses should become a general practice, or be fixed by reference to a particular rate, remains open for other courts to consider.
Case Title: Rakesh Kumar v. State of U.P. and Another
Bench: Justice Lakshmi Kant Shukla, Allahabad High Court
Impugned Order: Family Court, Prayagraj