Rs 1000 Not Enough Woman Inflation Court Maintenance Hike Rs 5000

The Allahabad High Court recently upheld an order enhancing a woman’s monthly maintenance from Rs 1,000 to Rs 5,000, observing that it is impossible for a woman to sustain herself on such a meagre amount in the face of rising inflation. Justice Achal Sachdev dismissed a plea filed by a man challenging orders of a family court that had enhanced the maintenance payable to his first wife and later rejected his application seeking recall of the ex parte order. “Undoubtedly, inflation has risen significantly during these 11 years. Even the wages of a laborer have increased significantly. In such a time of inflation, it is impossible to support a woman with just one thousand rupees,” the court noted in its order dated May 11. While examining the family court’s order, Justice Achal Sachdev noted that both children had attained majority and were no longer entitled to maintenance. Plea against maintenance hike According to the case records, the parties were married in 1995. The husband contended that his wife had been living separately for the past 17 years without reasonable cause and claimed that she earned around Rs 30,000 per month through a business. He also argued that he had been acquitted in a dowry harassment case filed against him and that he was struggling financially while supporting his wife and child. The husband further submitted that an order passed in 2003 had granted maintenance of Rs 1,600 per month in total to his wife and two minor children. He argued that although he had continued paying the amount, the family court wrongly enhanced the maintenance to Rs 5,000 per month in favour of his wife from the date of filing of the application. Opposing the plea, the wife argued that the husband had deceived her and contracted a second marriage while neglecting to maintain her. She contended that the enhancement application was filed after nearly 11 years because of the steep rise in inflation and living expenses, and that there was no limitation period prescribed for filing an application seeking modification of maintenance on account of changed circumstances. Also Read | ‘Man’s duty to maintain wife, children even by doing physical labour’: Delhi High Court Court upholds increase While examining the family court’s order, the high court noted that both children had attained majority and were no longer entitled to maintenance. “Perusal of the impugned order dated 07.03.2022 of learned trial court shows that both the children of the parties have attained adulthood and are no longer entitled to receive maintenance and neither party had the objection to the same,” it remarked. The court observed that the enhancement application was moved more than a decade after the original maintenance order and was primarily based on the substantial increase in inflation during that period. “The opposite party no 2 filed this suit on 28.03.2024, almost eleven years later, seeking an increase in the aforementioned maintenance amount. Undoubtedly, inflation has risen significantly during these 11 years,” the court noted. Also Read | ‘Father’s obligation absolute’: Minor kids can’t be denied maintenance due to mother’s remarriage, says court The court took note of evidence showing that the husband was employed as a labourer and was financially capable of paying the enhanced maintenance. “It is clear from the evidence and documents available on the record that the revisionist works as a laborer. In this regard, he has submitted a photocopy of his income certificate…and is fully capable of providing the revisionist with an increased amount of maintenance,” the court observed. It stressed that the respondent was his first wife and that it remained his primary responsibility to maintain her, particularly when the earlier amount had become inadequate due to inflation and the rising cost of living. “It is also a matter of fact that the opposite party no 2 is the first wife of the revisionist, therefore it is his primary responsibility to provide for the wife especially when the prior maintenance amount awarded is no more sufficient in view of inflation and cost of living,” the court remarked. It, therefore, held that the trial court’s order enhancing the maintenance amount from Rs 1,000 to Rs 5,000 per month was well-reasoned and justified, and required no interference.