How to Increase, Reduce or Modify Maintenance in India: Change in Circumstances, Section 146 BNSS, HMA, DV Act & 2026 Supreme Court Law

1. Maintenance is capable of revision

The purpose of modification jurisdiction is practical. Financial circumstances change. Salaries rise or fall. Businesses close. A child moves from primary school to university. Medical expenses arise. A recipient starts earning. A payer retires. Inflation changes the real value of an old order. A maintenance regime that ignored genuine later changes would quickly become unjust.

But modification is not an appeal in disguise. A party cannot ordinarily use a change-in-circumstances provision merely to reargue facts that existed when the original order was made and could have been contested then.

2. Section 146 BNSS: alteration in allowance

The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has replaced the old CrPC framework for new criminal-procedure matters from 1 July 2024. Section 144 deals with maintenance of wives, children and parents; Section 146 is titled “Alteration in allowance”; Section 147 deals with enforcement.

Official statute: India Code — Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

Older judgments interpreting Section 127 CrPC remain highly relevant to the concept of changed circumstances because Section 146 BNSS carries forward the alteration mechanism, subject to the current statutory text and transitional position of the particular case.

3. Section 25(2) Hindu Marriage Act

Section 25 HMA deals with permanent alimony and maintenance. Sub-section (2) empowers the court, where it is satisfied that there is a change in circumstances of either party after the order, to vary, modify or rescind the order in a manner it considers just.

This is distinct from Section 24 HMA, which deals with maintenance pendente lite and litigation expenses during the matrimonial proceeding. An interim order can also be challenged or revisited through the procedural remedies available in the case, but the statutory architecture is different from permanent alimony under Section 25.

4. Section 25(2) DV Act

Section 25(2) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act allows the aggrieved person or respondent to seek alteration, modification or revocation of an order if the Magistrate is satisfied that a change in circumstances requires it. The Magistrate must record reasons.

The provision can apply to different kinds of DV Act orders, not merely maintenance, depending on the relief and circumstances.

5. S. Vijikumari v Mowneshwarachari C.: change must be later

In S. Vijikumari v. Mowneshwarachari C., 2024 INSC 732, decided on 10 September 2024, the Supreme Court gave important guidance on Section 25(2) DV Act.

The Court explained that the change in circumstances must arise after the earlier order. The provision is not meant to retrospectively set aside a final maintenance order for the past merely because the respondent later alleges that the original facts were false. Modification or revocation can operate prospectively in accordance with the court’s order and the facts of the case.

The Court identified examples of possible changed circumstances such as a significant later change in income or financial position. It also recognised that change may occur on either side.

Primary judgment: Supreme Court — S. Vijikumari v. Mowneshwarachari C..

6. Preeti Sharma v Anuj Sharma: Delhi High Court 2026

In Preeti Sharma v. Anuj Sharma, CRL.REV.P. 950/2017 and connected matter, 2026:DHC:914, judgment pronounced on 4 February 2026, the Delhi High Court examined enhancement of maintenance under the old Section 127 CrPC framework.

The Court reiterated that the phrase “change in circumstances” includes changes in financial circumstances and may also extend to other material changes in the lives of the payer or recipient after maintenance was first fixed. Maintenance does not become an unalterable liability for all time. It can be increased or decreased when the evidentiary foundation is established.

Primary judgment: Delhi High Court — Preeti Sharma v. Anuj Sharma, 4 February 2026.

7. Harpreet Sawhney v Puneet Sharma: Supreme Court August 2026

In Harpreet Sawhney v. Puneet Sharma, 2026 INSC 822, decided on 10 August 2026, the Supreme Court enhanced maintenance in a dispute involving the wife and two children.

The Court considered the wife’s medical expenses arising from cancer treatment and the needs of the children. It enhanced the wife’s monthly maintenance and the children’s maintenance. Importantly, it clarified the treatment of salary deductions: voluntary savings and benefits that ultimately accrue to the employee cannot necessarily be treated as permanent compulsory charges reducing disposable income in the same manner as mandatory statutory deductions.

The judgment also expressly left open the ability to seek further enhancement if circumstances change in the future.

This is significant because it confirms that modification is not exceptional in the sense of being legally unavailable; it is part of the maintenance system where later facts justify it.

8. What counts as a material change in circumstances?

There is no single exhaustive list. Courts examine whether the new circumstance is genuine, significant and relevant to the maintenance equation.

Increase in the payer’s income

A substantial salary increase, promotion, business growth, new rental income or other increased resources can support enhancement, particularly where the existing award has become disproportionately low.

Decrease in the payer’s income

Genuine job loss, involuntary salary reduction, business closure or retirement may support reduction. The court will distinguish genuine hardship from strategic underemployment or artificial reduction created after litigation.

Increase in the recipient’s income

Later employment, business income, inheritance producing substantial income or another material source may justify reconsideration where it changes need or entitlement under the applicable statute.

Medical expenses

Serious illness can materially alter need. Harpreet Sawhney is a current Supreme Court illustration of medical expenditure affecting maintenance.

Children’s education

School fees, coaching, college, professional education, transport and medical costs can rise dramatically with age. Child maintenance often requires periodic reassessment.

Inflation and cost of living

An old order may lose real value over time. Inflation alone may not dictate a mechanical percentage increase, but it can form part of the changed-circumstances analysis.

Retirement

Retirement is relevant but not automatically decisive. Pension, retirement corpus, investments, rental income and continuing professional work may need to be considered.

9. What usually does not justify reduction by itself?

The following arguments require evidence and context rather than automatic acceptance:

• voluntary EMIs undertaken after separation;
• discretionary investments and savings;
• self-created reduction in take-home pay;
• mere assertion of business loss;
• remarriage of the payer without examining the governing law and obligations;
• claimant’s educational qualification without proof of sufficient income;
• informal cash liabilities unsupported by records.

10. Voluntary deductions after Harpreet Sawhney

The August 2026 Supreme Court decision draws an important distinction between mandatory deductions and financial allocations that remain beneficial assets of the payer. A party cannot necessarily reduce apparent disposable income by diverting salary into voluntary savings or employee investment plans and then asking the family court to treat the reduced take-home figure as the whole financial capacity.

The exact treatment depends on the deduction. Tax and genuinely mandatory statutory charges differ from savings that ultimately vest in the employee.

11. Home-loan and vehicle-loan EMIs

Loan obligations are relevant but do not automatically rank above maintenance. Courts examine when the liability was undertaken, whether it is necessary, whether it builds an asset for the payer and whether the loan was incurred in good faith.

A large EMI voluntarily undertaken after maintenance proceedings begin may receive different treatment from a pre-existing housing loan supporting the family residence.

12. Remarriage and new family obligations

Remarriage can create practical financial responsibilities, but its legal effect varies by the maintenance provision and facts. A payer cannot automatically extinguish an existing obligation by voluntarily assuming new responsibilities. At the same time, a court considering changed circumstances may examine the entire financial picture where the statute permits.

13. Remarriage of the recipient

Under particular maintenance statutes, remarriage can have express statutory consequences. Counsel must identify the exact provision governing the order rather than apply a general rule across all maintenance regimes.

14. Child becoming major

Attaining majority may affect entitlement differently under different statutes and based on disability, education and personal-law rights. Do not assume that every maintenance obligation automatically ends on the eighteenth birthday. The source of the order and statutory entitlement must be examined.

15. How much change is enough?

Trivial fluctuation is unlikely to justify repeated litigation. The change should be material. A ₹2,000 increase in salary may not warrant reopening a recent order; a doubling of income or a major medical event may. Courts also consider how long ago the original order was made.

16. Evidence for enhancement

• latest salary slips or verified income material;
• updated ITRs and bank statements;
• school fee circulars and receipts;
• medical bills and treatment plans;
• rent increase proof;
• inflation-sensitive household expense chart;
• evidence of changed standard of living or business growth;
• comparison with the financial material relied upon in the original order.

17. Evidence for reduction

• termination letter or involuntary salary-reduction record;
• business financial statements showing genuine decline;
• retirement and pension records;
• medical disability affecting earning capacity;
• updated claimant income records where legally relevant;
• proof of changed custody or child expenses;
• a transparent comparison with the earlier financial position.

18. The before-and-after table

A modification application becomes much stronger when the changed circumstance is quantified rather than merely asserted.

19. Modification is not retrospective cancellation of the old order

S. Vijikumari is especially important here. A party cannot ordinarily use a modification application to recover years of maintenance already paid under a final order merely by alleging that the original order should never have been made. The modification provision addresses later change.

If the complaint is that the original order itself was illegal, obtained by fraud or passed without jurisdiction, the appropriate legal remedy may be different and should be analysed separately.

20. From what date can modified maintenance operate?

The answer depends on the statute, the court’s order and the governing precedent. The Supreme Court in S. Vijikumari explained in the DV Act context that alteration may take effect from the date of the modification application or another date ordered by the Magistrate depending on the facts, but cannot be used to retrospectively claw back the period before the original order.

Because date-of-operation questions can materially affect arrears, every modification application should contain a specific prayer identifying the date from which the new amount is sought.

21. Can parties unilaterally reduce payment while modification is pending?

No. Filing a reduction application does not itself stay the existing order. Unless the court grants interim protection or modifies/stays the order, the existing obligation continues.

22. Arrears continue unless stayed or adjusted

A payer should not assume that a pending reduction petition freezes arrears. Likewise, a recipient seeking enhancement should understand that the existing order remains enforceable unless changed. Maintenance litigation should always track current monthly liability and arrears separately.

For overlapping orders, see Multiple Maintenance Orders in India: Set-Off and Adjustment.

23. What if the payer deliberately quits the job?

Voluntary unemployment does not necessarily establish inability to pay. Courts can examine qualifications, employment history, reasons for resignation, assets, later work and whether the conduct appears calculated to defeat maintenance.

24. Genuine job loss

Where job loss is involuntary, immediate disclosure is important. Termination documents, severance, unemployment period, job applications and available savings can help the court assess whether temporary reduction or restructuring is justified.

25. Business loss

Business persons should provide financial statements, GST data, tax returns, bank turnover and evidence of the event causing the decline. A one-page assertion that “business is in loss” is rarely persuasive if lifestyle and bank activity remain unchanged.

26. Increase in recipient’s income

If a recipient later obtains significant employment or business income, the payer may seek modification where the governing statute makes that financial change relevant. However, a small salary may not necessarily eliminate need if it is insufficient to maintain the statutory standard of support.

27. Maintenance for children and changing educational stages

Children’s expenses rarely remain static. School admissions, tuition, coaching, college, sports, medical treatment and travel can substantially alter the budget. A child-maintenance modification application should include actual fee documents rather than broad estimates.

28. Medical change as a ground for enhancement

Harpreet Sawhney demonstrates the weight courts may give serious medical needs. Treatment records, expected future costs, insurance coverage and out-of-pocket expenses should be documented.

29. Medical change as a ground for reduction

Serious illness or disability of the payer can also be relevant if it materially affects earning capacity or creates unavoidable treatment costs. Again, evidence is essential.

30. Can inflation justify enhancement?

Yes, as part of the overall changed-circumstances picture, especially where an order is many years old. Courts may compare current costs, incomes and needs rather than apply a fixed inflation formula.

31. Enforcement while enhancement is pending

The original order remains the enforceable benchmark until changed. A claimant seeking enhancement cannot execute the higher amount before it is awarded, but can continue enforcing the existing order.

32. Appeal/revision versus modification

These remedies serve different purposes. An appeal or revision challenges legal or factual error in an existing order. Modification addresses a later material change. Choosing the wrong route can cause delay and limitation problems.

33. What if the original income was concealed?

If evidence existing at the time of the original order was concealed, counsel must examine whether appeal, revision, recall, fraud jurisdiction or another remedy is available. Do not automatically label that issue as a later “change in circumstances”. S. Vijikumari warns against using Section 25(2) DV Act as a retrospective substitute for challenging the original order.

34. Hidden income discovered later

Later discovery can nevertheless be practically important, especially if it reveals a continuing or changed income stream. The legal route depends on when the income arose and what relief is sought. See our detailed guide: Hidden Income in Maintenance Cases.

35. Drafting an enhancement application

The pleading should:

1. identify the original order;
2. state the original financial basis;
3. plead each later change with date;
4. annex proof;
5. provide old versus current expense comparison;
6. disclose connected maintenance proceedings;
7. state the exact enhanced amount sought;
8. state the date from which enhancement is requested.

36. Drafting a reduction application

A reduction application should be equally transparent. It should not merely list liabilities. It should establish why the change was involuntary or legally relevant, disclose current assets and income, and show the amount that can realistically be paid without defeating the recipient’s legitimate entitlement.

37. Frequently asked questions

Can maintenance be increased after an order?

Yes, where the applicable statute permits modification and a material change in circumstances is proved.

Can maintenance be reduced after job loss?

Potentially yes, if the job loss and financial impact are genuine and documented. The existing order continues until modified or stayed.

Can the wife seek enhancement if the husband’s salary doubles?

A substantial increase in the payer’s income can be a relevant changed circumstance, subject to the statute, needs and overall financial position.

Can the husband seek reduction if the wife starts earning?

Potentially, if the new income materially changes the statutory maintenance analysis. The amount and sufficiency of that income matter.

Can children’s maintenance be enhanced for higher school fees?

Yes, educational expenses can be a significant changed circumstance when supported by actual records.

Can old maintenance be recovered back after a later reduction?

Not merely because circumstances later changed. The effective date of modification depends on the order and law. S. Vijikumari rejects retrospective use of Section 25(2) DV Act to undo the pre-existing period in the manner attempted there.

Does retirement automatically reduce maintenance?

No. Pension, retirement benefits, assets and actual needs must be considered.

Are PF and ESPP deductions always deducted from salary for maintenance?

No. The Supreme Court in Harpreet Sawhney distinguished voluntary savings/benefits accruing to the employee from compulsory statutory deductions.

38. Related resources

• Hidden Income in Maintenance Cases
• Multiple Maintenance Orders: Set-Off and Adjustment
• Reply to Interim Maintenance Application
• Divorce Process in India

39. Conclusion

Maintenance orders respond to financial reality, and financial reality can change. The law therefore provides mechanisms for enhancement, reduction and modification. The critical distinction is between a genuine later change and an attempt to relitigate the original order.

The strongest modification application is built as a comparison: what facts existed when the original order was made, what changed afterward, when it changed, how large the financial impact is, and what documents prove it. The 2026 decisions in Preeti Sharma and Harpreet Sawhney, read with the Supreme Court’s guidance in S. Vijikumari, provide a current roadmap for that exercise.

Disclaimer: The applicable remedy and effective date depend on the statute, original order, later facts, evidence and forum.