Readiness and Willingness Under Section 16(c) Is Not a Ritualistic Phrase — Plaintiff Must Prove It With Substance, Not Just Words: Karnataka High Court FIR in Disproportionate Assets Case Quashed: Patna High Court Slams SP for 'Non-Application of Mind' and 'Absence of Credible Source Information' Ownership of Vehicle Linked to Commercial Quantity of Heroin – Custodial Interrogation Necessary: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail under Section 482 BNSS Death Caused by Rash Driving Is Not a Private Dispute — No FIR Quashing on Basis of Compromise in Section 106 BNS Cases: Punjab & Haryana High Court No Bank Can Override Court Orders: Rajasthan High Court Slams Axis Bank for Unauthorized Withdrawal from Court-Ordered FD" Indian Courts Cannot Invalidate Foreign Arbitral Awards Passed Under Foreign Law: Madhya Pradesh High Court Enforces Texas-Based Award Despite Commercial Court’s Contrary Decree Sudden Quarrel over Mound of Earth — Not Murder but Culpable Homicide: Allahabad High Court Eligibility Flows from Birth, Not a Certificate Date: Delhi High Court Strikes Down Rule Fixing Arbitrary Cut-Off for OBC-NCL Certificates in CAPF (AC) Recruitment Bar Under Order II Rule 2 CPC Cannot Be Invoked Where Specific Performance Was Legally Premature Due To Statutory Impediments: P&H High Court Once a Court Declares a Department an Industry Under Section 2(j), State Cannot Raise the Same Objection Again: Gujarat High Court Slams Repetitive Litigation by Irrigation Department “How Could Cheques Issued in 2020 Be Mentioned in a 2019 Contract?”: Delhi High Court Grants Injunction in Forged MOA Case, Slams Prima Facie Fabrication Calling Wife by Her Caste Name in Public Just Before Suicide is Immediate Cause of Self-Immolation: Madras High Court Upholds Husband’s Conviction Under Section 306 IPC Sole Testimony of Prosecutrix, If Credible, Is Enough to Convict: Delhi High Court Upholds Rape Conviction Cheque Issued as Security Still Attracts Section 138 NI Act If Liability Exists on Date of Presentation: Himachal Pradesh High Court No Work No Pay Is Not a Universal Rule: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dock Identification Without Prior TIP Is Absolutely Useless: P&H High Court Upholds Acquittal in Attempt to Murder Case Filing Forged Court Pleadings in Union Government’s Name is Criminal Contempt: Karnataka High Court Sentences Litigant to Jail Execution of Will Proved, But Probate Justly Denied Due to Concealment of Property Sale: Delhi High Court Mere Designation Doesn’t Establish Criminal Liability: Bombay High Court Quashes Proceedings Against ICICI Officials in Octroi Evasion Case Fraud on Power Voids the Order: Supreme Court Quashes FIR Against Karnataka BJP Leader R. Ashoka, Slams Politically Motivated Prosecution Cause of Fire Is Immaterial If Fire Itself Is Insured Peril: Supreme Court Rebukes Insurer’s Repudiation Dragging a Trained Army Officer Up 20 Steps Without Resistance? The Story Lacks Credence: Supreme Court Upholds Acquittal in Army Officer’s Murder Semen Stains Alone Do Not Prove Rape: Supreme Court Acquits Doctor Accused of Rape No Mortgage, No SARFAESI: Supreme Court Rules Against NEDFi, Says Recovery Action in Nagaland Without Security Agreement Was Illegal Parity Cannot Be Denied by Geography: Supreme Court Holds Jharkhand Bound by Patna HC's Judgment, Orders Pay Revision for Industries Officer Once Power Flows Continuously from a Synchronized Turbine, It Is No Longer Infirm: Supreme Court Orders TANGEDCO to Pay Fixed Charges to Penna Electricity

125 Cr.P.C | Calcutta High Court Reduces Maintenance Payment, Stresses Consideration of Existing Obligations and Petitioner’s Health

21 October 2024 8:36 PM

By: sayum


Family Court’s order to pay Rs. 30,000 per month modified to Rs. 15,000, balancing maintenance obligations and petitioner’s deteriorating health. In a significant ruling, the Calcutta High Court has revised a Family Court order requiring Ramkrishna Panda alias Ramkrishna Shastri to pay Rs. 30,000 per month as maintenance to his estranged wife. The judgment, delivered by Justice Shampa Dutt (Paul), emphasizes the necessity of considering existing maintenance orders and the petitioner’s age and health while assessing maintenance obligations.

The case, titled CRR 1643 of 2023, stems from a revision petition filed by Ramkrishna Panda against an order by the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Calcutta, which directed him to pay Rs. 30,000 per month as maintenance to his estranged wife from the date of filing the case. The parties were married in the 1970s and have been divorced since 1986. The petitioner, now over 70 years old and suffering from various ailments, is already paying Rs. 22,000 per month in maintenance through other proceedings: Rs. 7,000 to his estranged wife and Rs. 15,000 to their divorced daughter.

The High Court criticized the Family Court for not considering the existing maintenance obligations when ordering the additional Rs. 30,000 per month. Referring to the Supreme Court’s guidelines in Rajnesh vs. Neha & Anr. (2021), Justice Shampa Dutt (Paul) highlighted that all existing maintenance orders must be taken into account to ensure a fair evaluation of the petitioner’s financial responsibilities.

The court noted the petitioner’s advanced age and health issues, which limit his income capacity. “Admittedly, the petitioner is aged more than 70 years and suffering from various ailments. His being able-bodied at this age and his source of income from his profession is not what a young person would be able to do,” observed Justice Dutt (Paul).

Balancing the petitioner’s financial ability with the dependent’s needs, the court reduced the maintenance amount to Rs. 15,000 per month. The judgment underscored the importance of considering the overall financial burden on the petitioner, including existing maintenance payments. “Taking into consideration all the proceedings between the parties for maintenance, it is directed that the petitioner shall pay a sum of Rs. 15,000 per month as maintenance to the Opposite Party No.2/wife since the date of filing,” the court ruled.

Justice Dutt (Paul) remarked, “From the affidavit of assets also, the petitioner does not appear to have a substantial income at this age to pay a monthly maintenance of Rs.30,000/- in addition to the amount of Rs.22,000/- being already paid.”

The Calcutta High Court’s decision to modify the maintenance order highlights the judiciary’s commitment to equitable maintenance assessments, considering the financial and health status of the payer. This judgment not only provides relief to Ramkrishna Panda by reducing his financial burden but also sets a precedent for future cases involving maintenance disputes. The revised maintenance amount ensures a balanced approach, taking into account the petitioner’s existing obligations and limited earning capacity.

Date of Decision: 15th May 2024

Ramkrishna Panda alias Ramkrishna Shastri vs. The State of West Bengal & Anr.

Latest Legal News