CrPC | Wife Must Seek Enhancent Of Maintenance u/S 127, Not Through A Fresh Petition u/S 125: MP HC

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that when a wife has already secured a maintenance order under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, she cannot file a second application under the same provision merely because circumstances have changed. Instead, the proper legal remedy is to seek enhancement under Section 127 CrPC.

Justice Dwarka Dhish Bansal passed the ruling while partly allowing a criminal revision filed by the husband against an order of the Family Court, Katni, which had granted his wife monthly maintenance of Rs.10,000 under Section 125 CrPC.

The husband was represented by Advocate Purushottam Das Jaiswal, while Advocate Anand Chawla appeared for the wife.

The dispute had a long legal history. The wife had earlier obtained a maintenance order in 1989, under which she was initially awarded Rs.300 per month. That amount was later reduced to Rs.200 by the High Court in revision proceedings in 1991. Decades later, she filed another application under Section 125 CrPC, which the Family Court allowed, holding that the earlier proceedings did not bar a fresh claim because the principle of res judicata would not apply.

Challenging that decision, the husband argued before the High Court that a second application under Section 125 was legally not maintainable because the wife already had an existing maintenance order in her favour. If she believed the amount had become inadequate due to changed circumstances, she ought to have invoked Section 127 CrPC, which specifically provides for alteration or enhancement of maintenance.

He also relied upon an ex parte divorce decree passed in 2002 on the ground of adultery. The decree had attained finality after the wife's application to set it aside under Order IX Rule 13 of the Civil Procedure Code was dismissed in 2003. According to the husband, the Family Court wrongly ignored both orders by observing that an ex parte decree would not operate as res judicata.

The High Court found merit in both objections. It observed that the Family Court had incorrectly relied on Supreme Court and Bombay High Court decisions dealing with entirely different factual situations. Those judgments, the Court said, could not justify entertaining a second maintenance application where an earlier maintenance order already existed.

The Court observed, “In the light of changed circumstances, respondent/wife was free to move an application under Section 127 Cr.P.C. for enhancement of the maintenance amount and second application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. for awarding maintenance was not maintainable at all.”

On the effect of the divorce decree, the Court reiterated that an ex parte decree has the same legal force as a contested decree unless it is set aside through appropriate proceedings. Referring to Supreme Court precedents, it said, “An ex parte decree is as good as bi-party decree” and continues to operate unless overturned.

Holding that the Family Court had failed to properly appreciate both the earlier maintenance proceedings and the legal effect of the divorce decree, the High Court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter for fresh consideration.

The Family Court has now been directed to restore the wife's application to its original number and decide it afresh in accordance with law. Meanwhile, the husband will continue paying interim maintenance of Rs.4,000 per month, as directed by the High Court in 2018, until the Family Court passes a fresh order.

The parties have also been directed to appear before the Family Court on August 17, 2026.

Case Title: Jagannath Soni v. Smt. Munnibai @ Aruna Kumari Soni

Date of Order: July 13, 2026

Bench: Justice Dwarka Shish Bansal