AKM v. SM & Anr., 2026

The wife filed an application in 2007 under Sections 18 and 20(2) of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 (HAMA) seeking maintenance for herself and her minor child.

In 2010, the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bhubaneswar awarded monthly maintenance of ₹3,000 to the wife and ₹1,500 to the child.

In 2016, the wife approached the Family Court by filing an application under Section 127 CrPC seeking enhancement of the maintenance amount.

The Family Court allowed the application in 2022 and enhanced the maintenance.

The husband challenged the order before the Orissa High Court, contending that the Family Court lacked jurisdiction because the original maintenance order had been passed under HAMA and not under Section 125 CrPC.

The husband argued that enhancement could only be sought under Section 25 HAMA.

The wife relied upon the Supreme Court's decision in Rajnesh v. Neha to justify approaching the Family

The Orissa High Court held that Section 127 CrPC cannot be invoked to enhance maintenance awarded under the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956.

The Court observed that Section 127 CrPC is applicable only where the original maintenance order was passed under Section 125 CrPC.

It found that the Family Court committed a jurisdictional error by exercising powers under a statute that did not govern the original maintenance order.

The Bench noted that the error may have occurred because the records of the original HAMA proceedings were not placed before the Family Court.

The Court clarified that the Supreme Court's decision in Rajnesh v. Neha was intended to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and overlapping jurisdictions, but it does not permit a court to exercise jurisdiction under an incorrect statutory provision.

The order enhancing maintenance was set aside.

The wife was granted liberty to file an appropriate application under Section 25 HAMA for enhancement of maintenance.

The High Court directed that if such an application is filed, 26 November 2016, the date on which the earlier application under Section 127 CrPC was filed, shall be treated as the deemed date of the application.

The Court emphasized that a statutory remedy must be pursued under the statute under which the original relief was granted.

The ruling reinforces the principle that jurisdiction cannot be assumed merely because the subject matter is similar.

The decision clarifies the limited scope of Rajnesh v. Neha, holding that it does not authorize courts to overlook statutory requirements relating to jurisdiction.

By granting the benefit of the earlier filing date, the Court protected the wife's substantive rights while correcting the procedural defect.

The judgment promotes procedural discipline and ensures that maintenance disputes are adjudicated under the correct legislative framework.

The ruling will guide Family Courts in distinguishing maintenance proceedings under CrPC/BNSS from those under personal laws such as HAMA.

The decision highlights that jurisdictional errors cannot be cured merely by considerations of convenience or equity.