The Delhi High Court has clarified that maintenance cannot be treated as a perpetual burden that keeps increasing without valid justification. Both husband’s and wife’s changing circumstances must be equally considered, and mere allegations or expectations of higher income are not enough.
Brief Facts of the Case
The marriage between the parties was solemnized in 1990. The couple had no children. The wife alleged harassment and desertion in 1992, while the husband’s divorce petition was later dismissed. Over the years, the wife was awarded maintenance of ₹10,000 per month under Section 125 Cr.P.C. in 2012.
In 2018, the wife moved an application under Section 127 Cr.P.C., seeking enhancement of maintenance from ₹10,000 to ₹30,000 per month, citing increase in the husband’s income, her health issues, and the death of her father who used to support her. The Family Court dismissed the application in 2024, holding that the husband’s pension was actually less than his earlier salary. The wife challenged this dismissal before the High Court.
Legal Provisions Involved
- Section 125 Cr.P.C. – Grant of maintenance to wife, children, and parents.
- Section 127 Cr.P.C. – Alteration in maintenance on proof of change in circumstances.
Arguments of the Petitioner (Wife)
- Husband’s pension had increased compared to his earlier income.
- She suffers from arthritis and thyroid, needing regular treatment.
- After her father’s death, she is fully dependent on husband.
- Maintenance fixed in 2012 is outdated considering inflation and rising living costs.
Arguments of the Respondent (Husband)
- He is a retired senior citizen with limited means.
- Wife already has fixed deposits of ₹4 lakhs and bank balance of ₹2 lakhs.
- He has been consistently paying maintenance for 32 years without default.
- Wife failed to produce proof of substantial medical expenses.
- He continues to live alone and requires personal care himself.
Court’s Observations
- The Family Court erred in comparing gross salary (2012) with pension (2024) without considering that earlier maintenance was calculated on net income. The pension of ₹40,068/- is higher than the net salary considered in 2012.
- Maintenance fixed in 2012 cannot remain stagnant in 2025, given inflation and rise in cost of living.
- The wife, being a legally wedded spouse, is entitled to fair sustenance, but the husband’s senior citizen status and limited post-retirement resources must also be considered.
- Court directed restoration of wife’s name on the husband’s CGHS card for medical benefits.
Conclusion of the Judgment
The Delhi High Court enhanced the wife’s maintenance from ₹10,000 to ₹14,000 per month, striking a balance between her sustenance needs and the husband’s financial limitations. The order also directed re-inclusion of her name in the husband’s CGHS card to ensure medical care.
Comments from the author of this website
When I read this judgment, I cannot ignore the lopsided reality that men face in such cases. This man has been paying maintenance since 1994—over thirty years of continuous financial liability. Three decades of paying for someone who has not lived with him, who did not seek divorce, and who has lived her life separately, while he grew old alone. And still, at the age of 70, he is not free.
The law speaks of equality, but where is the equality here? A retired man, living on a pension, should be entitled to peace in his last years. Instead, he is dragged into fresh rounds of litigation where the demand is not for companionship, not for closure, not for resolution—but for more money. The wife in this case had deposits, funds from her late father, and even admitted savings. Yet, the expectation still remained that the husband’s limited pension must stretch endlessly to cover her.
This is not sustenance anymore; this is dependency institutionalized. Maintenance was meant to prevent destitution, not to create a permanent pipeline of money that flows regardless of circumstances. The irony is that the husband has no escape—he cannot remarry peacefully, he cannot retire peacefully, and he cannot even grow old with dignity. For him, marriage ended in 1992, but its financial shackles remain in 2025.
We often hear about women’s empowerment. But empowerment cannot mean being absolved of all responsibility while continuing to extract financial support forever. Real empowerment comes with accountability. If a woman is able-bodied, if she has savings, if she is capable of seeking work, should she not be expected to share the burden of her own life? Instead, men are told that their responsibility lasts till their last breath.
What makes this case even more striking is the emotional cost. Imagine being 70, frail, and in need of care yourself, but still defending yourself in court against demands that are three times what you can afford. The law does not ask whether this constant litigation erodes the man’s health, peace, or dignity. It simply assumes that he can and must keep providing.
Maintenance has slowly transformed into a life sentence for men—a punishment that has no end date. This is not fairness; this is exploitation wearing the mask of justice.
Final Thoughts
Yes, the Court showed restraint by rejecting the inflated claim of ₹30,000 and limiting the increase to ₹14,000. But the larger issue remains unsolved: how long should a man keep paying for a marriage that has long been dead in reality?
Maintenance was never meant to be a life sentence. It was meant to prevent destitution, not to chain a man for decades after separation. If a marriage has broken down irretrievably, if there is no companionship, no partnership, and no shared life—then forcing a man to keep paying forever is nothing short of legalized exploitation.
The law must evolve to reflect fairness:
- Maintenance should be time-bound, not endless.
- Both spouses must be accountable for their own sustenance.
- Old age and retirement must be respected, not turned into another battlefield.
Until then, men like the respondent in this case will continue to live as permanent providers, trapped in marriages that ended in spirit long ago but refuse to die on paper.
Read Complete Judgement Here