The Delhi High Court has ruled that a husband’s enhanced earnings and the escalating cost of living are valid reasons to revise and increase the maintenance payable to his estranged wife.
The bench of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma overturned a family court’s earlier decision that had rejected the woman’s request for an upward revision in her maintenance allowance.
The couple married in April 1990, but their relationship soured within two years. The wife accused her husband of subjecting her to both physical and mental harassment, along with dowry-related demands, leading to their separation.
In 2012, after years of legal proceedings, the family court directed the husband to pay a monthly maintenance of ₹10,000. At that time, his monthly income was assessed at ₹28,000.
In 2018, the wife—now 60 years old—approached the court once again seeking an enhancement of the maintenance, citing her husband’s promotion from Trained Graduate Teacher (TGT) to Post Graduate Teacher (PGT), which significantly increased his salary. She also pointed out that her father, who had been her financial support, had passed away and that she was bearing heavy medical expenses.
Arguments Before the Court
The husband, aged 70, countered her plea by stating that he had retired in 2017 and, though he worked on extension for two more years, his financial resources had since diminished. He also argued that the wife had savings in her bank account and fixed deposits, which the family court considered while dismissing her plea in September last year.
The wife, however, argued that her financial position had been overstated and that the maintenance amount, fixed more than a decade ago, was no longer sufficient considering inflation and her medical needs. She further alleged that the husband, despite being a government employee, had wrongfully removed her name from his Central Government Health Scheme (CGHS) card.
High Court’s Findings
Justice Sharma observed that the family court had erred in not taking into account the change in the husband’s financial status. While maintenance was originally determined based on his ₹28,000 salary, his earnings had since increased, and even his pensionary benefits were higher than the income considered in 2012.
“The rise in his income coupled with the significant increase in the cost of living constitutes a clear change in circumstances warranting enhancement of the amount of maintenance,” Justice Sharma held.
Accordingly, the High Court set aside the family court’s order, directing a reassessment of the maintenance amount in light of the husband’s present income and the wife’s financial and medical needs.
