Maintenance Granted Under HAMA Can't Be Enhanced Under Section 127 CrPC: Orissa High Court

The Orissa High Court has held that a Family Court cannot exercise its jurisdiction under Section 127 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) to enhance maintenance amount when the original maintenance order was passed under the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 (HAMA). [2026 LiveLaw (Ori) 87]

While setting aside the impugned order which was passed on such jurisdictional error, the Bench of Justice Mruganka Sekhar Sahoo observed–

“It is seen that somehow, the judgment under challenge, passed under Section 127 of Cr.P.C. also does not refer to the earlier application or the judgment and order made therein under Sections 18 and 20 of the HAM Act, 1956. The probable reason for the learned court to proceed erroneously was absence of copy of the petition earlier filed purportedly under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. and the records of judgment rendered therein whereas there was no petition filed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C.”

The opposite-party/wife, in 2007, had filed an application under Section 18 read with Section 20(2) of the HAMA seeking maintenance from the petitioner/husband for herself as well as for their minor child. The application was decided in the year 2010 by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bhubaneswar, who granted Rs. 3000/- and Rs. 1500/- monthly maintenance in favour the wife and the child respectively.

In 2016, the opposite party filed an application under Section 127 of the CrPC before the Judge, Family Court-II, Bhubaneswar seeking enhancement of the maintenance amount granted earlier. The said application was disposed of in 2022 by passing an order granting enhanced maintenance.

Against such order, the petitioner-husband filed this revision petition especially challenging usurpation of power by the Family Court under Section 127 CrPC to grant enhanced maintenance amount while the original order was made by invoking the HAMA. He, thus, questioned the jurisdiction of the Court to grant enhanced maintenance under a different statute.

Referring to the ruling of the Supreme Court in Rajnesh v. Neha, 2020 INSC 631, the petitioner argued that although the top Court had directed to place all pleas related to maintenance between a couple before Family Court, it was only to address overlapping of jurisdictions of several Courts under several statutes. However, such direction cannot come to the rescue of the opposite party who has invoked a wrong jurisdiction by invoking a wrong statutory provision.

Considering the aforesaid contention, the Court also acknowledged the error committed by the Family Judge. The Court, however, presumed that such error happened due to the unavailability of the original maintenance application/petition in the court records.

Accordingly, the impugned order enhancing the maintenance amount was set aside and the opposite party was granted liberty to pursue appropriate remedy which lies under Section 25 of the HAMA. The Court also held–

“It is further clarified that since the earlier application under Section 127 of Cr.P.C. filed on 26.11.2016 was registered as CMA No.139 of 2016 and disposed of by final order dated 15.10.2022 which has now been set aside; the application of the present opposite parties if presented seeking enhancement of maintenance under Section 25 of HAM Act, 1956, shall be considered taking 26.11.2016 as the deemed date of application.”

Case Title: AKM v. SM & Anr.

Case No: RPFAM No. 295 of 2022

Date of Judgment: July 09, 2026

Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. R. Mahato, Advocate

Counsel for the Opposite Parties: Ms. Dipti Dhall, Advocate

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ori) 87

Click Here To Read/Download Order