Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding

🚨 Important Update for Our Users

We are transitioning to our new and improved portal - www.taxtmi.com - for a better experience.

⚠️ This portal will be fully migrated on 31-July-2025 at 23:59:59

After this date, all services will be available exclusively on our new platform.

If you encounter any issues or problems while using the new portal,
please let us know via our feedback form , with specific details, so we can address them promptly.

  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + HC Indian Laws - 2025 (7) TMI HC This

  • Login
  • Summary

Forgot password



 

2025 (7) TMI 1527 - HC - Indian Laws


ISSUES:

    Whether the reduction in the maintenance amount by the learned Magistrate under Section 127 CrPC is legally sustainable.If reduction is warranted, from which date should the reduced maintenance amount take effect- the date of the order or the date of change in circumstances (retirement of the maintenance payer)?

RULINGS / HOLDINGS:

    The reduction of maintenance from Rs. 30,000/- to Rs. 20,000/- per month by the learned Magistrate is not fully sustainable; the Court increased the maintenance to Rs. 25,000/- per month with a 5% hike every two years to reflect the "dignity and standard of living" and the "concept of equi status" of the wife.The effective date of the reduction in maintenance shall remain the date of the impugned order (30.12.2023) as Section 127 CrPC grants discretion to the Court to decide the operative date, and no interference is warranted with the Magistrate's decision on this point.

RATIONALE:

    The Court applied the statutory framework of Section 127 CrPC governing variation of maintenance orders, emphasizing that maintenance is a "legal obligation" and not charity, and must preserve the "life style stability" and "marital standard of living" of the wife post-separation.The Court rejected reliance solely on the income tax returns as "not conclusive proof" of actual income, recognizing the possibility of under-reporting and the necessity to consider "all declared, undeclared and historical earnings," assets, and potential income sources, consistent with recent Apex Court precedents.The Court considered factors including residential comfort, health care standards, social and economic status, qualifications, employment, income sources, assets, inflation, and the fact that the wife is a homemaker dependent on maintenance, while the husband has retired and incurs significant expenses.The Court noted the absence of a specific provision in Section 127 CrPC regarding the effective date of maintenance variation, confirming judicial discretion in this regard and affirming the Magistrate's choice of the order date as effective date.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates