Intent of alimony to avoid destitution or vagrancy not punishment for spouse: HC

In the instant case, the court said, there is nothing on record to prove that there has been changing in circumstances to increase alimony

The Delhi High Court has declared that the amount of maintenance once fixed under Section 125(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code for the wife is not something which can be taken to be a blanket liability for the husband for all times to come.

The amount so fixed "is subject to variation on both sides. It can be increased or decreased as per the altered circumstances," a bench of Justice Chandra Dhari Singh said.

The court on Friday rejected a plea by the wife of a man for raising the maintenance from Rs 3,000 to Rs 35,000 per month, saying the circumstances alleged by her already existed at the time of passing the original maintenance judgment in 2017; therefore, proof of such circumstances cannot form the basis for altering the amount of maintenance under sub-section (1) of Section 127 CrPC.

"The intent behind granting interim/permanent alimony is to ensure that the dependent spouse is not reduced to destitution or vagrancy on account of the failure of the marriage, and not as punishment to the other spouse," the bench said.

The financial capacity of the husband, his actual income with reasonable expenses for his own maintenance, and dependant family members whom he is obliged to maintain under the law, liabilities if any, would be required to be taken into consideration, to arrive at the appropriate quantum of maintenance to be paid, it added.

"It is settled law that balance and equity must carefully be drawn between all relevant factors. The test of determination of maintenance in matrimonial disputes depends on the financial status of the respondent and the standard of living that the revisionist was accustomed to in her matrimonial home," the court said.

The wife here alleged she was thrown out of her matrimonial home within months of her marriage in 2008 as she failed to fulfil the demand of a Rs 10 lakh dowry. She claimed her husband was working in in-charge of a flour mill and earned Rs 82,000 per month.

The husband, on the contrary, alleged that the wife was living separately on her own accord and the charges of abuse and demand of dowry were nothing but tactics to extort money. He claimed he was only a fifth standard pass and worked as a cab driver and earned Rs 15,000 per month. The wife, on the other hand, was a graduate and was capable enough to work and earn for herself. He also submitted he was living in a rented house and had to maintain his aged parents.

In the instant case, the court said, there is nothing on record to prove that there has been changing in circumstances that would warrant an enhancement in maintenance. The wife also failed to put on record any material that the husband earned so well to increase the amount.