Luxury for One Cannot Mean Struggle for the Other - Husband’s True Income Cannot Be Suppressed to Deny Fair Maintenance: Calcutta High Court

Calcutta High Court modified a maintenance order under Section 125 CrPC, directing Ravi Kumar Mour to pay his estranged wife Sushma Mour an enhanced maintenance of ₹32,000 per month, after finding that he had suppressed his actual income.
"The duty of a husband to maintain his wife is based on his financial capacity, actual income, and standard of living—not on mere claims of insufficient earnings," observed Justice Ajay Kumar Gupta, while allowing Criminal Revision Petition No. 3724 of 2017.
The judgment emphasized that maintenance should be realistic and sufficient to enable the wife to live with reasonable comfort, considering the husband's income and lifestyle.
"Luxury for One Cannot Mean Struggle for the Other": Court Finds Suppression of Income
The wife had originally been awarded ₹10,000 per month by the Family Court in 2017. She challenged the order, arguing that her husband, a businessman with multiple hotels in Kolkata, Guwahati, and Delhi, earns over ₹20 lakh per month but had falsely claimed an income of only ₹18,000 per month.
"The husband has not been truthful about his financial position. He admitted in cross-examination that he owns shares in multiple businesses, including Mayur Residency, Mayur Hotel, and Mayur Krishna Pvt. Ltd.," the court noted.
It further observed, "Despite his significant earnings, he attempted to evade his responsibility towards his wife by downplaying his income. Such suppression cannot be permitted to deprive the wife of fair maintenance."
"Maintenance Must Reflect Status and Lifestyle"
The petitioner-wife contended that maintenance must be sufficient for her to live a dignified life, considering the luxurious lifestyle her husband continues to enjoy.
She had sought ₹2,00,000 per month, citing the following expenses:
•    Rent for a 3BHK flat – ₹10,230
•    Travel expenses – ₹5,000
•    Food expenses – ₹6,000
•    Litigation expenses – ₹12,000
•    Clothing expenses – ₹6,000
Rejecting the husband's argument that the wife could "work and earn on her own", the court held that a wife is not obligated to work if she lacks independent income and is dependent on her husband.
"The financial disparity between the parties cannot be ignored. A wife should not be forced to live in hardship while her husband enjoys a lavish lifestyle," the court ruled, increasing the maintenance to ₹32,000 per month.
"Multiple Maintenance Orders Must Be Adjusted"
The court also took into account various maintenance amounts awarded under different legal proceedings:
1.    ₹8,000 per month under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.
2.    ₹10,000 per month awarded by the Family Court under Section 125 CrPC (2017).
3.    ₹32,000 per month awarded as alimony pendente lite under the Hindu Marriage Act in a matrimonial suit.
To prevent double recovery, the court directed that all maintenance amounts be adjusted so that the total payable amount remains at ₹32,000 per month.
"Husband Must Clear Arrears in Six Months"
Finding that the husband had failed to pay maintenance regularly, the court issued a strict directive:
•    All arrears of maintenance must be cleared within six months, either in one lump sum or in installments.
•    Future maintenance must be paid by the 15th of every month, without fail.
•    Failure to comply could lead to coercive legal action.
"A Wife’s Right to Maintenance is Not Charity, But a Legal Obligation"
The court heavily relied on Supreme Court judgments, including Rajnesh v. Neha (2020) 3 SCC 794 and Bharat Hegde v. Saroj Hegde (2007) 5 SCC 688, to reiterate that maintenance is not charity but a husband’s legal obligation.
"The husband’s attempt to evade maintenance by suppressing his actual earnings and claiming a meager salary cannot be accepted. Maintenance should reflect the dignity and standard of living that the wife was accustomed to during marriage," the court concluded.
By enhancing the maintenance to ₹32,000 per month, the Calcutta High Court reaffirmed that financial justice is central to matrimonial law. The ruling sends a strong message that:
•    Husbands cannot evade maintenance obligations by suppressing income.
•    Maintenance must be sufficient to allow the wife to live with dignity.
•    Adjustments must be made when multiple maintenance orders exist.
•    Timely payment of maintenance is mandatory, failing which legal consequences will follow.
This judgment will serve as a crucial precedent for fair and adequate maintenance awards in matrimonial disputes.

Date of Decision: 29 January 2025