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 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 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

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,

Latest Legal News