Victim Has Locus To Request Court To Summon Witnesses Under Section 311 CrPC In State Prosecution: Allahabad High Court Order 2 Rule 2 CPC Cannot Be Ground to Reject a Plaint: Supreme Court Draws Crucial Distinction Between Bar to Sue and Bar by Law No Right to Lawyer Before Advisory Board in Preventive Detention — Unless Government Appears Through Legal Practitioner: Supreme Court Wife's Dowry Statement Cannot Be Used to Prosecute Her for 'Giving' Dowry: Supreme Court Upholds Section 7(3) Shield Husband's Loan Repayments Cannot Reduce Wife's Maintenance: Supreme Court Raises Amount to ₹25,000 From ₹15,000 Prisoners Don't Surrender Their Rights at the Prison Gate: Supreme Court Issues Binding SOP to End Delays in Legal Aid Appeals A Judgment Must Be a Self-Contained Document Even When Defendant Never Appears: Supreme Court on Ex Parte Decrees Court Cannot Dismiss Ex Parte Suit on Unpleaded, Unframed Issue: Supreme Court Sets Aside Specific Performance Decree Denied on Title Erroneous High Court Observations Cannot Be Used to Stake Property Claims: Supreme Court Steps In to Prevent Misuse of Judicial Observations No Criminal Proceedings Would Have Been Initiated Had Financial Settlement Succeeded: Supreme Court Grants Anticipatory Bail In Rape Case Directors Cannot Escape Pollution Law Prosecution by Claiming Ignorance: Allahabad High Court Refuses to Quash Summons Against Company Directors Order 7 Rule 11 CPC | Court Cannot Peek Into Defence While Rejecting Plaint: Delhi High Court Death 3½ Months After Accident Doesn't Break Causal Link If Doctors Testify Injuries Could Cause Death: Andhra Pradesh High Court LLB Intern Posed as Supreme Court Advocate, Used Fake Bar Council Card and Police Station Seals to Defraud Victims of Rs. 80 Lakhs: Gujarat High Court Rejects Anticipatory Bail Husband Who Travels to Wife's City on Leave, Cohabits With Her, Then Claims She 'Never Lived With Him' Cannot Prove Cruelty: Jharkhand High Court Liquor Licence Is a State Privilege, Not a Citizen's Right — No Vested Right of Renewal Survives a Change in Rules: Karnataka High Court Sets Aside Stay on E-Auction Policy Court Holiday Cannot Save Prosecution From Default Bail: MP High Court No Search At Your Premises, No Incriminating Document, No Case: Rajasthan HC Quashes Rs. 18 Crore Tax Assessment Under Section 153C Limitation Act | Litigant Cannot Be Punished For Court's Own Docket Load: J&K High Court

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