According to the Delhi High Court, whenever a party asserts a change in circumstances following the issuance of a maintenance order under Section 125 CrPC, the appropriate course of action would be to seek relief under Section 127 of the Code rather than bringing a new petition under Section 125 of the Code. This was observed by the court in the case of Sunita & Anr Vs. Vijay Pal.
It stated that a petition under Section 127 CrPC, rather than a new petition under Section 125 CrPC, would be the appropriate course of action where a party asserts a change in circumstances after an order providing maintenance had been granted under Section 125 CrPC.
This ensures exploitation of the legal system and deprives a litigant of their right to constantly bring up concerns in court that have already been resolved amicably by a court of law, according to the court.
The situation developed as a result of a wife's plea contesting an order made by the Principal Judge of the Family Court in a divorce matter. According to the challenged ruling, the Trial Court had denied her request for maintenance due to res judicata.
The wife's application was denied by the Trial Court on the grounds that, prior to the filing of the aforementioned petition, she and her two children had filed a different petition under Section 125 CrPC, which resulted in a decision awarding each of the three petitioners Rs. 500 per month as maintenance.
The High Court noted that the purpose of Section 125 CrPC is to ensure that the estranged wife receives financial assistance, not to punish anyone but to support those who have a moral obligation to be maintained.
The Court added that submitting an application under Section 127 CrPC requires an adjudicated order under Section 125 CrPC. It also stated that after a Section 125 application has been submitted and a maintenance amount has been approved, a Section 127 CrPC application may be submitted to request a modification of the maintenance amount awarded due to a change in circumstances.
The Court came to the conclusion that a petition under Section 127 of the Code must be submitted if there is a corresponding change in the parties' circumstances or condition at the time of submitting an application to modify the original maintenance order.
The Court subsequently rejected the argument, noting that the petitioner’s wife would need to use section 127 of the CrPC. to seek any additional remedy in the event of a change in circumstances and noted that "Section 127 CrPC is not a stand-alone provision as the same requires a decision granting maintenance under Section 125 CrPC. The term "change in circumstances" as referred to in Section 127(1) not only includes a change in the financial circumstances of the husband or wife but may also include other circumstantial changes in the husband's or wife's life which have arisen since the maintenance was first awarded."