Introduction

In Smt. Krishna Kumari v. Sh. Surender Singh, the Delhi High Court (Dr. Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma) revisited the framework for modifying maintenance under Section 127 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), and addressed the ancillary but critical issue of spousal access to CGHS medical facilities when the husband is a government employee. The Court corrected an analytical error in the Family Court’s approach to “change in circumstances,” clarified how incomes must be compared for Section 127 purposes, modestly enhanced the wife’s maintenance, and directed restoration of the wife’s name on the respondent’s CGHS card.

The case arises from a long marital separation: the parties married in 1990 and have lived apart since 1992. The wife was awarded Rs. 10,000 per month under Section 125 CrPC in 2012 (from the 2008 filing). In 2018, she sought enhancement under Section 127 CrPC to Rs. 30,000, citing increased income of the husband, the 7th Pay Commission, inflation, her medical needs, and the passing of her father (who had supported her). The Family Court dismissed her plea in 2024, leading to this revision.

Two key issues were framed: (i) What constitutes a cognizable “change in circumstances” under Section 127 CrPC, and how should courts compare past and present incomes? and (ii) Is an estranged but legally wedded wife entitled to CGHS coverage on the government-employed husband’s card, and can a court direct restoration of that entitlement?

Summary of the Judgment

• Flawed comparison corrected: The Family Court had compared the husband’s 2012 gross salary (Rs. 45,455) with his current pension (Rs. 40,068) and found no increase. The High Court held this to be legally erroneous because maintenance in 2012 was pegged to his net salary of Rs. 28,705; the proper comparator for Section 127 is the net income basis used then versus the current actual net income. On that comparable basis, the pension (treated as net) shows an increase.
• Enhancement ordered: Recognizing the rise in the husband’s income and inflationary pressures, the Court modestly enhanced maintenance from Rs. 10,000 to Rs. 14,000 per month, effective from the date of filing of the revision petition (2024), with arrears payable within six weeks.
• CGHS entitlement affirmed: The Court held that the wife’s entitlement to a CGHS card (as the legally wedded spouse of a government employee) is a “valuable right” flowing from the marital relationship and cannot be denied merely because she seeks treatment in government hospitals. The Court directed that her name be restored to the husband’s CGHS card and a copy be provided to her within two months.
• Scope of Section 127 reiterated: “Change in circumstances” includes the financial conditions of both parties, as well as non-financial factors such as health, dependency, and the rising cost of living. The Court relied on established precedents to reiterate that maintenance is dynamic, not frozen in time.

Analysis

Precedents Cited and Their Influence

• Bhagwan Dutt v. Kamla Devi, (1975) 2 SCC 386: The Supreme Court underscored that “circumstances” in Section 127 necessarily include financial circumstances. The High Court relied on this foundational principle to stress that ongoing changes in the financial positions of either spouse warrant revisiting maintenance.
• Sarita Bakshi v. State, 2022 SCC OnLine Del 1707: The Delhi High Court explained that “change in circumstances” under Section 127(1) CrPC is broad, covering increases or decreases in the husband’s income, changes in the wife’s earning capacity, additional financial burdens, and general economic conditions. Sarita Bakshi also linked quantification to the methodology in Rajnesh v. Neha (2021) 2 SCC 324. This judgment anchors the present decision’s recognition of inflation and enhanced income as valid triggers for variation.
• Nitin Sharma v. Sunita, 2021 SCC OnLine Del 694; Chanchal Verma v. Anurag Verma, 2022 SCC OnLine Del 2993: These decisions clarify that only statutory and compulsory deductions can be excluded in assessing the husband’s income for maintenance; voluntary deductions (like loans or optional savings) cannot depress the assessable income. While the 2012 order predated these crystallized principles and could not be reopened, the High Court used their logic to inform a correct present-day comparison.
• Rajnesh v. Neha, (2021) 2 SCC 324: Though not cited directly, it is invoked via Sarita Bakshi as laying down best practices for disclosure and quantification in maintenance cases. Its ethos—comprehensive financial assessment and fairness—permeates the Court’s approach here.

Legal Reasoning

1. The Comparable‑Net‑Income Test under Section 127: The Family Court’s comparison of 2012 gross salary (Rs. 45,455) with 2024 pension (Rs. 40,068) misconceived the inquiry. In 2012, the Family Court fixed maintenance with reference to the husband’s net salary (Rs. 28,705). The correct question in Section 127 proceedings is whether the payor’s current net income has materially changed as against the net income basis used when maintenance was set. On that comparable baseline, the current pension of Rs. 40,068 reflects a clear increase.
   • This reasoning aligns with Nitin Sharma and Chanchal Verma, which confine exclusions to statutory deductions only.
   • The Court also observed that no deductions were to be made from the pension, so the pension functions as the net figure for comparison.
2. Inflation and Cost of Living as Change in Circumstances: The Court accepted that the 2012 quantum (Rs. 10,000) could not remain adequate in 2025 given inflation, advanced age, and enhanced expenses. Sarita Bakshi’s wide canvas of “change in circumstances” permits such macroeconomic factors to be weighed along with income growth.
3. Balanced Enhancement: While acknowledging the husband’s status as a senior citizen with limited post‑retirement resources, the Court recognized the wife’s dependency and dignity interests. It therefore moderated the enhancement to Rs. 14,000 per month—below the Rs. 30,000 sought—striking a balance between competing equities.
4. CGHS Entitlement as a Marital Right: The Court took strong exception to the wife’s deletion from the husband’s CGHS card. It characterized CGHS access as a “valuable right flowing from the marital relationship,” independent of whether the wife currently seeks treatment at government hospitals. The Court ordered restoration of her name within two months. This recognizes that CGHS is not merely a reimbursement mechanism but a protective, preventive health entitlement especially salient in old age.
5. Procedural Corrective in Execution: The Family Court had disposed of execution proceedings on the premise that no arrears were outstanding, but did not adjudicate the wife’s application for CGHS facilitation. The High Court implicitly corrected this omission by issuing the CGHS direction itself, emphasizing that such ancillary relief cannot be ignored in maintenance execution.
6. Effective Date of Enhanced Maintenance: The Court made the enhancement effective from the date of filing of the revision petition, not from the 2018 Section 127 application. This reflects judicial discretion to tailor the effective date in enhancement proceedings to the equities of the case, especially where a lower court has rejected relief and the High Court is intervening in revision.

Impact and Significance

• Doctrinal Clarification: Comparable‑Net‑Income Test. Family Courts must compare like with like. If the original maintenance was pegged to the husband’s net income (post only statutory deductions), the present inquiry under Section 127 must assess current net income on the same basis. Misleading comparisons (e.g., past gross vs. present pension) are impermissible. This correction will improve analytical consistency in maintenance variation orders.
• Recognition of Pension as Net Income for Maintenance Assessment. By treating the pension as a net figure (generally without further deductions), the decision offers practical clarity for cases involving retirees. It minimizes disputes over what may be deducted at the pension stage.
• Inflation Is Actionable Proof of Change. Courts may consider inflation and cost-of-living increases as independent grounds—alongside income change—to revisit quantum. This ensures maintenance remains realistic and prevents attrition of relief over time.
• CGHS Entitlement for Estranged Wives Strengthened. The characterization of CGHS access as a “valuable right” flowing from the marital relationship will likely influence future cases involving government employees. It affirms that estrangement alone does not extinguish the spouse’s medical entitlements; courts can order restoration of coverage where it has been improperly withdrawn.
• Execution Proceedings Must Address Ancillary Reliefs. The decision signals that Family Courts should adjudicate ancillary applications (like CGHS facilitation) when disposing of execution petitions in maintenance matters, rather than leaving them unresolved.
• Measured Enhancements in Senior‑Citizen Contexts. The Court’s modest increase reflects a growing jurisprudential trend to balance needs with the limited means of retired payors. Future quantification will likely continue to be individualized, not formulaic.

Complex Concepts Simplified

• Section 125 vs. Section 127 CrPC: Section 125 provides a quick, summary remedy for maintenance to dependents (including wives). Section 127 allows modification of the previously fixed maintenance upon “proof of a change in the circumstances” of either party (income rise/fall, health, dependency, inflation, etc.).
• “Change in Circumstances” Under Section 127: Not confined to the husband’s income. It includes:
  • Increase/decrease in husband’s income;
  • Wife’s income, if any, or loss thereof;
  • New or relieved dependents, health changes, medical needs;
  • Macro factors like inflation and cost-of-living changes.
• Statutory vs. Voluntary Deductions: For computing “net income” in maintenance:
  • Statutory/compulsory deductions (e.g., income tax, mandatory provident fund contributions, professional tax) may be excluded.
  • Voluntary deductions (e.g., loan EMIs, optional savings beyond the statutory minimum, charitable contributions) generally cannot be used to reduce assessable income.
• Why the Comparable‑Net‑Income Test Matters: If 2012 maintenance was based on a net figure of Rs. 28,705, then 2025 income must be compared on a similar net basis (here, pension ~ Rs. 40,068). Comparing 2012 gross to 2025 pension would falsely suggest no improvement in capacity.
• CGHS Entitlement: The Central Government Health Scheme covers government employees and their eligible dependents, including a legally wedded spouse. Separation does not per se forfeit the spouse’s entitlement. Courts can direct restoration where deletion has occurred, ensuring access to outpatient/inpatient care, specialist consultations, and emergency services—critical in old age.
• Effective Date of Enhanced Maintenance: Courts have discretion to decide from when an enhancement operates—date of the Section 127 application, date of the revisional filing, or date of order—depending on facts and equities. Here, it was made effective from the revision’s filing date.

Key Takeaways

• Maintenance orders are not static. Courts must revisit them when circumstances materially change.
• Use the comparable‑net‑income test: compare the present net income against the net figure used for the original maintenance determination, not past gross income.
• Inflation and rising cost of living qualify as “change in circumstances.”
• For retirees, pension is treated as the operative net income for maintenance assessment.
• Estranged but legally wedded spouses of government employees retain a valuable right to CGHS coverage; courts can order restoration if wrongfully deleted.
• Family Courts must adjudicate ancillary relief (like CGHS direction) in execution, not leave it unresolved.
• Enhancement may be made effective from the date of the revision, reflecting equitable discretion.

Conclusion

Krishna Kumari v. Surender Singh contributes two notable refinements to maintenance jurisprudence. First, it crystallizes a comparable‑net‑income test for Section 127 CrPC: when assessing “change in circumstances,” courts must compare like with like—present net income against the net income that underpinned the original order—rather than juxtaposing incomparable figures such as a past gross salary and a present pension. Second, it affirms the CGHS entitlement of an estranged but legally wedded spouse as a valuable right that cannot be minimized simply because she uses government hospitals.

The judgment balances fairness to a retired payor with the dependent spouse’s dignity and health needs, modestly enhancing maintenance to reflect both increased income and inflation. Its practical directions—restoring CGHS coverage and setting a clear effective date—offer a template for principled, compassionate adjudication in long-pending matrimonial disputes.