Section 25(2) Hindu Marriage Act | Court Can Grant Maintenance To Wife Exceeding The Amount Claimed By Her: Orissa High Court

The Orissa High Court has ruled that a competent Court, considering facts and circumstances of the case as well as to provide just and fair means, can grant maintenance to wife exceeding the amount which she claimed in her application under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 ('the Act').

Clarifying the disputed question concerning jurisdiction of Courts to grant enhanced maintenance, the Division Bench of Justice Bibhu Prasad Routray and Justice Chittaranjan Dash observed –

“The judicial discretion must be exercised to provide a fair and just maintenance amount, considering the dependent's actual needs and the payer's financial capability, even if the claim was initially understated.”

Case Background

The sexagenarian respondent-wife has no independent source of income, who is availing limited government benefits, including ₹500 per month under a government scheme and 5 KGs of free rice. Being unable to maintain her daily expenditures and medical expenses with the aforesaid meagre resources, she filed an application under Section 25(2) of the Act seeking enhancement of her maintenance from Rs. 1500/- to Rs. 7000/-.

Taking into account the income of the appellant-husband and necessity of the respondent-wife, the Family Court, Rourkela enhanced the maintenance amount to Rs. 10,000/- per month, which is beyond the claimed amount. Finding fault with such order, the appellant impugned the same before the High Court.

Court's Findings

The singular issue which cropped up for consideration was whether the Judge, Family Court had jurisdiction and was justified to grant an enhanced maintenance to the tune of Rs. 10,000/- while the respondent had claimed merely Rs. 7000/-.

Referring to Section 25(2) of the Act, the Court said that under the said provision, the Court has the power to vary, modify, or rescind maintenance orders if there is material change in circumstances of either party.

“The phrase “at the instance of either party” mandates that a formal application must be made, and judicial discretion must be exercised within the framework of the claim and evidence provided,” it clarified.

The Court noted that similarly, Section 127 of the CrPC permits alteration of maintenance, granted under Section 125 of CrPC, based on changes in financial circumstances by stating that on proof of a change in the circumstances of any person receiving maintenance, the Magistrate may make such alteration, increase or decrease in the allowance as he thinks fit.

“It is well established that Courts can modify maintenance upon proof of material change in circumstances. While Courts have the power to modify maintenance based on changed circumstances, this power is not suo motu and must be exercised only on the application of either party,” the Court observed.

The Bench relied upon the judgment in Kamaldeep Kaur and Anr. v. Balwinder Singh (2005), where the Punjab and Haryana High Court held that there is no specific restriction under Section 125 CrPC as to the power of Magistrate to award more than the amount claimed in the petition. Rather, it held, duty has been imposed on the Magistrate to award compensation which he thinks fit.

The Andhra Pradesh High Court G. Amrutha Rao v. The State of Andhra Pradesh decided a similar maintenance claim where the wife initially sought a monthly maintenance of ₹30,000 whereas the trial Court enhanced this amount to ₹50,000 per month, significantly exceeding the wife's original request.

In the present case, the Court said, the Family Court exceeded its jurisdiction by granting ₹10,000 maintenance when the wife had claimed only ₹7,000. However, as per Section 25(2) of the Act and based on the above precedents, the Court has the discretion to increase maintenance based on substantial change in circumstances.

“This part of the order of the Family Court can at best be said that the Court erred procedurally in awarding more than what was claimed but the substance of its decision remains correct, given the financial assessment of both parties,” it asserted.

The Court further noted that the appellant-husband is aged about 72 years, who is a retired railway diesel engine driver, receiving a pension of ₹50,000 per month. Though he claimed to have high personal expense, but the Court was not satisfied since he did not provide any documentary evidence to substantiate the alleged liabilities. Thus, it was held that lack of documentary proof weakens his claim of financial incapacity.

It was also underlined that the respondent-wife was unaware of the amount of pension that the appellant was drawing, which came to her knowledge only when the latter disclosed the same through affidavit during the course of hearing. Furthermore, the maintenance amount granted by the Family Court was less than 25% of the pension.

The Division Bench ruled that Court's discretion must be exercised to grant a fair and just maintenance amount, taking into account the dependent's actual needs and the payer's financial capability, even if the claim was initially for a lesser amount.

“The enhancement, in the instant case, is warranted based on necessity rather than technicalities of the original plea. Considering the Appellant's pension income and the Respondent's financial needs, this Court finds no ground to interfere with the learned Family Court's conclusion. Despite procedural lapses in granting an amount beyond the pleadings, the ultimate finding of the Family Court is justified and does not warrant reversal,” it held accordingly.

Consequently, the matrimonial appeal was dismissed.

Case Title: Nirmal Karnakar v. Parbati @ Parbati Karnakar

Case No: MATA No. 133 of 2024

Date of Judgment: February 14, 2025

Counsel for the Appellant: Mr. A.P. Bose, Appellant

Counsel for the Opposite Party: Mr. Sadananda Sahoo, Advocate

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 39

Click Here To Read/Download Order