Increasing or Decreasing Maintenance in India: Supreme Court Guidelines and Legal Strategy

Blog by: Jayprakash B. Somani
Advocate, Supreme Court of India & IP
Contact: PA: 9322188701
Websites: www.jayprakashsomani.com | www.supremecourtlawfirm.com

Introduction

Maintenance is an important legal remedy intended to protect dignity, financial security, and reasonable living standards. In India, maintenance may be claimed under different statutory provisions depending on the relationship between the parties, the nature of the proceedings, and the applicable personal law.

The amount of maintenance is not fixed by a universal formula. Courts consider the parties’ actual income, reasonable needs, liabilities, standard of living, and financial circumstances. An application for increasing or decreasing maintenance generally requires evidence of a material change in circumstances since the previous order.

1. Legal Provisions Governing Maintenance in India

Several statutes provide remedies for maintenance:

Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS): This provision, corresponding broadly to former Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, provides a summary remedy for eligible wives, divorced wives who have not remarried, children, and parents. Section 146 BNSS addresses alteration of maintenance allowances due to a change in circumstances.

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955: Section 24 provides maintenance pendente lite and litigation expenses during matrimonial proceedings, subject to statutory conditions. Section 25 deals with permanent alimony and maintenance and permits variation in appropriate circumstances.

Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005: Section 20 provides monetary relief, including maintenance for the aggrieved woman and her children. Interim and ex parte orders may be considered under Section 23.

Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956: Sections 18, 19, and 20 address maintenance of wives, widowed daughters-in-law, children, and aged parents, as applicable. Sections 23 and 25 concern the determination and alteration of maintenance in relevant circumstances.

Other remedies may arise under the Special Marriage Act, 1954, the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986, the Divorce Act, 1869, and the Parsi Marriage and Divorce Act, 1936, depending on the circumstances.

2. Supreme Court Guidelines in Rajnesh v. Neha

In Rajnesh v. Neha, (2021) 2 SCC 324, the Supreme Court established an important framework for maintenance proceedings. The judgment addresses financial disclosure, overlapping maintenance proceedings, determination of the amount, the date from which maintenance is payable, and enforcement.

Courts consider factors such as actual income, assets, reasonable expenses, dependent family members, liabilities, the parties’ standard of living, and sacrifices made for family responsibilities.

The judgment also emphasises disclosure of previous maintenance proceedings and orders to help prevent double recovery. Maintenance is intended to prevent destitution and preserve dignity, not to punish either party.

3. Grounds for Increasing Maintenance

A claimant seeking enhancement should demonstrate increased needs or a material change in financial circumstances. Relevant grounds may include:

A substantial increase in the payer’s income.
Higher rent, medical expenses, or living costs.
Increased educational expenses of children.
New or greater healthcare requirements.
Discovery of previously concealed income, property, investments, or business profits.
Changed circumstances affecting the claimant’s reasonable needs.

For example, if the payer’s income rises substantially while the maintenance amount remains unchanged, the increase may support an enhancement application. However, higher income does not automatically justify a proportionate increase. Documentary evidence and the overall circumstances remain important.

4. Grounds for Reducing Maintenance

A payer may seek reduction where there is a genuine and material change in circumstances, such as substantial loss of income, unemployment supported by evidence, permanent disability, serious illness, retirement, or significant unavoidable financial obligations.

Relevant documents may include salary records, income-tax returns, bank statements, termination letters, medical reports, disability certificates, and evidence of dependent family members.

The claimant’s actual independent income may also be relevant. However, education or the theoretical ability to work does not automatically disentitle a spouse to maintenance. Courts examine whether the claimant has sufficient actual income in the circumstances.

A bare assertion of financial difficulty or unemployment is generally insufficient without credible supporting evidence.

5. Important Supreme Court Judgments on Maintenance

Several judgments guide maintenance litigation:

Chaturbhuj v. Sita Bai, (2008) 2 SCC 316: Explained the social purpose of maintenance provisions and their role in preventing destitution.
Bhuwan Mohan Singh v. Meena, (2015) 6 SCC 353: Emphasised that delays in maintenance proceedings can defeat their purpose.
Shamima Farooqui v. Shahid Khan, (2015) 5 SCC 705: Highlighted the importance of a wife’s right to live with dignity and the inadequacy of unsupported unemployment claims.
Manish Jain v. Akanksha Jain, (2017) 15 SCC 801: Discussed relevant financial circumstances in determining maintenance.
Kalyan Dey Chowdhury v. Rita Dey Chowdhury, (2017) 14 SCC 200: Considered income in determining maintenance; no percentage should be treated as a universal rule.
Sudeep Chaudhary v. Radha Chaudhary, (1997) 11 SCC 286: Addressed adjustment of overlapping maintenance awards.

In Rajnesh v. Neha, the Supreme Court also directed that maintenance should generally be awarded from the date of the application, subject to the applicable legal framework and circumstances.

6. Evidence and Litigation Strategy

For enhancement, the claimant should compare the financial position at the time of the original order with the present circumstances. Useful evidence includes income records, rent agreements, school-fee receipts, medical bills, bank statements, and proof of the payer’s assets.

For reduction, the payer should establish the genuine change through reliable financial, employment, or medical documents. Both parties should disclose earlier maintenance proceedings, amounts awarded, and payments received.

A maintenance claim should reflect actual needs and reasonable expenses rather than arbitrary demands. Similarly, a reduction application should not rely on artificial liabilities or concealment of income.

Where a matter reaches the Supreme Court, the challenge should ordinarily identify a substantial legal error, failure to consider material evidence, an unreasonable finding, or non-compliance with governing principles. Under Article 136 of the Constitution, the Supreme Court’s intervention is discretionary and is not a routine opportunity to reassess every factual disagreement.

Conclusion

Increasing or decreasing maintenance in India depends on the applicable statute, the parties’ circumstances, and credible evidence of material change. The Supreme Court has consistently emphasised fairness, dignity, financial transparency, and reasonable needs.

A strong maintenance case rests on accurate disclosure, reliable documents, a clear comparison of past and present circumstances, and application of the correct legal principles. There is no rigid formula that determines maintenance in every case.

Disclaimer: This article is for general legal information and educational purposes only. The appropriate remedy depends on the applicable statute, personal law, procedural stage, and facts of each case. It does not constitute legal advice.