Appellate Court Must Re-Appreciate Evidence To Determine Lesser Offence Under Section 386 CrPC If Graver Charge Is Not Sustained: Supreme Court SARFAESI Act | Provisions Override Other Laws Including Principles Of Res Judicata: Supreme Court Right To Information Act | CCTV Footage Cannot Be Provided Directly To Applicant If It Falls Under Section 8(1)(g) Exemptions: Allahabad High Court Section 24 CPC | Convenience Of Wife Is The Paramount Consideration In Transfer Of Matrimonial Proceedings: Andhra Pradesh High Court Inefficient Case Management By State Law Officers Impedes Justice: Allahabad High Court Directs Principal Secretary (Law) To Reform Procedures Section 24 CPC | Convenience Of Wife Is A Primary Consideration For Transfer Of Matrimonial Proceedings, But Virtual Appearance Can Mitigate Hardship: Andhra Pradesh High Court Son Cannot Claim Co-Ownership Or Resist Eviction Based On Alleged Financial Contribution To Property Purchased In Mother’s Name: Delhi High Court Order 33 Rule 1 CPC | Applicant Must Prove Inability To Pay Court Fee With Cogent Evidence; Mere Assertion Of Indigence Is Insufficient: Chhattisgarh High Court Plaintiff Must Establish Independent Right To Possession, Cannot Rely Solely On Lacunae In Defendant’s Evidence: Delhi High Court Successor Cannot Remain Silent: Bombay High Court Upholds Tenant's Right To Purchase Agricultural Land, Rules Rejection Before 1961 Amendment No Bar Single Mother Has Right To Determine Child’s Surname And Alter Biological Father's Name In Birth Certificate: Calcutta High Court Court Can Sanction Professional Fees Of Valuers Exceeding Prescribed Ceiling Post-Assignment: Bombay High Court MACT | Appellate Court Can Reduce Compensation Even If Insurer’s Appeal Challenges Quantum While Claimant Seeks Enhancement: Punjab & Haryana High Court Order VI Rule 17 CPC | Amendment Of Written Statement To Correct Internal Inconsistencies Does Not Amount To Withdrawal Of Admission: Delhi High Court Oral Family Partition Valid Even If Unregistered: Jharkhand High Court Power Of Attorney Lacking Explicit Interest Is Revocable Regardless Of 'Irrevocable' Label: Gujarat High Court DRC Act | Summary Eviction Proceedings Cannot Be Converted Into Extended Litigation By Seeking To File Additional Documents Post-Pleadings: Delhi High Court Financial Institutions Cannot Use 'Goonda-ism' For Repossession: Supreme Court Mandates Compensation For Violation Of Article 21

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