High Court, As A Constitutional Court Of Record, Possesses The Inherent Power To Correct Its Own Record: Bombay High Court High Court of Uttarakhand Acquits Defendants in High-Profile Murder Case, Cites Lack of Evidence In Cases of Financial Distress, Imposing A Mandatory Deposit Under Negotiable Instruments Act May Jeopardize Appellant’s Right To Appeal: Rajasthan High Court Patna High Court Acquits Accused, Questions “Capacity of Victim to Make Coherent Statement” with 100% Burn Injuries High Court of Himachal Pradesh Dismisses Bail Plea in ₹200 Crore Scholarship Scam: Rajdeep Singh Case Execution of Conveyance Ends Arbitration Clause; Appeal for Arbitration Rejected: Bombay High Court Allahabad High Court Denies Tax Refund for Hybrid Vehicle Purchased Before Electric Vehicle Exemption Policy Entering A Room with Someone Cannot, By Any Stretch Of Imagination, Be Considered Consent For Sexual Intercourse: Bombay High Court No Specific Format Needed for Dying Declaration, Focus on Mental State and Voluntariness: Calcutta High Court Delhi High Court Allows Direct Appeal Under DVAT Act Without Tribunal Reference for Pre-2005 Tax Periods NDPS | Mere Registration of Cases Does Not Override Presumption of Innocence: Himachal Pradesh High Court No Previous Antecedents and No Communal Tension: High Court Grants Bail in Caste-Based Abuse Case Detention of Petitioner Would Amount to Pre-Trial Punishment: Karnataka High Court Grants Bail in Dowry Harassment Case Loss of Confidence Must Be Objectively Proven to Deny Reinstatement: Kerala High Court Reinstates Workman After Flawed Domestic Enquiry Procedural lapses should not deny justice: Andhra High Court Enhances Compensation in Motor Accident Case Canteen Subsidy Constitutes Part of Dearness Allowance Under EPF Act: Gujarat High Court Concurrent Findings Demonstrate Credibility – Jharkhand High Court Affirms Conviction in Cheating Case 125 Cr.P.C | Financial responsibility towards dependents cannot be shirked due to personal obligations: Punjab and Haryana High Court Mere Acceptance of Money Without Proof of Demand is Not Sufficient to Establish Corruption Charges Gujrat High Court Evidence Insufficient to Support Claims: Orissa High Court Affirms Appellate Court’s Reversal in Wrongful Confinement and Defamation Case Harmonious Interpretation of PWDV Act and Senior Citizens Act is Crucial: Kerala High Court in Domestic Violence Case

Litigation Costs Are Awarded to Enable a Litigant to Pursue or Defend a Suit Without Undue Hardship” – High Court at Calcutta Adjusts Litigation Costs in Matrimonial Dispute

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


The High Court at Calcutta addressed crucial issues pertaining to the awarding of litigation costs and maintenance pendente lite under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and related legislation. The court particularly focused on Sections 24 and 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) Section 125, and the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act.

The revisional applications, C.O. No. 111 of 2022 and C.O. No. 1071 of 2022, arose from disputes in a matrimonial suit concerning litigation costs and maintenance payments. Both applications were related to orders issued by the Additional District Judge in Contai regarding litigation expenses and maintenance payments in ongoing matrimonial proceedings.

The trial court’s method of adjusting maintenance payments against litigation costs was found inappropriate. The High Court emphasized that “litigation costs are awarded to enable a litigant to pursue or defend a suit without undue hardship” and should not be offset by maintenance awards, which are intended for basic living expenses.

The court reiterated that litigation costs should be prioritized and awarded from the outset of proceedings, especially when the wife is the respondent in a matrimonial suit. It stressed that maintenance includes necessities for a decent living but does not encompass litigation costs; thus, both need separate consideration.

The High Court underscored the importance of viewing matrimonial disputes with a lens that considers human aspects beyond legal technicalities. It was pointed out that proceedings should not continue where litigation costs ordered are not paid, to ensure compliance with court orders.

The High Court modified the litigation costs awarded to the respondent, directing the petitioner to pay Rs. 2,000 per month instead of Rs. 3,000, citing the need for reasonable and just enforcement tailored to the case specifics. Furthermore, the court ordered that matrimonial proceedings should only continue in the lower court upon compliance with the adjusted litigation cost payments.

Date of Decision: May 03, 2024

Partha Sakha Maity v. Bijali Maity and Bijali Maity Paria,

Similar News