Maintenance is Not Equalization of Wealth, But Must Reflect Marital Standard of Living: Calcutta High Court Enhances Interim Relief to Hasin Jahan

“Even If Wife Earns, It Doesn’t Absolve Husband of Legal and Moral Duty of Maintenance” — Calcutta High Court, presided over by Hon’ble Dr. Justice Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee, addressing the question of whether the interim maintenance awarded to the wife and her minor daughter under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (PWDV Act) was just, reasonable, and consistent with the standard of living to which the wife was accustomed during marriage.

While enhancing the interim monetary relief granted to the wife from ₹50,000 to ₹1,50,000 per month, and for the minor daughter from ₹80,000 to ₹2,50,000 per month, the Court held that “maintenance is not intended to equalize wealth but to ensure that the aggrieved person continues to live a life consistent with the dignity and standard enjoyed during marriage.”

The Court further directed that the trial court should dispose of the main application under Section 12 of the PWDV Act expeditiously, preferably within 60 days, reiterating that “the protective spirit of the PWDV Act cannot be defeated by mechanical or inadequate orders.”

The dispute arose from the matrimonial relationship between the petitioner Hasin Jahan and her husband (Opposite Party No. 2), a well-known national-level cricketer. The couple married on 7th April 2014 as per Islamic rituals and had a daughter born on 17th July 2015.

The petitioner alleged that after marriage, she and her daughter were subjected to “enormous physical as well as mental torture” by her husband and his family, leading to the filing of FIR No. 82/2018 at Jadavpur Police Station under sections 498A, 328, 307, 376, 325, and 34 of the IPC. The police investigation culminated in a charge sheet against the husband and other family members.

Simultaneously, the petitioner initiated proceedings under Section 12 of the PWDV Act, seeking interim monetary relief of ₹7 lakhs per month for herself and ₹3 lakhs for her minor daughter, asserting that her husband earned over ₹7.19 crores in the financial year 2020-21, while she had a meagre income of ₹16,000 per month.

The Magistrate, however, rejected her claim for interim relief for herself and granted only ₹80,000 per month to the minor daughter, leading her to file a criminal appeal. The appellate court modified the Magistrate’s order and awarded her ₹50,000 per month, which she challenged in the present criminal revision petition.

The key legal question before the Court was whether the interim maintenance awarded was “adequate, fair, reasonable, and consistent with the standard of living to which the aggrieved person was accustomed.”

The Court categorically held that “maintenance is not a means of equalizing the wealth of the spouse but is aimed at preventing destitution and preserving dignity.” Referring to the Supreme Court’s ruling in Rinku Baheti vs. Sandesh Sharda, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3801, the Court observed:

“We have serious reservations with the tendency of the parties seeking maintenance as an equalization of wealth with the other party… The law of maintenance is aimed at empowering the destitute and achieving social justice and dignity of the individual.”

Rejecting the husband’s contention that the wife was a model and actress with sufficient independent income, the Court observed:

“Even if the wife is earning some amount of money, it is not sufficient to rule out her entitlement to monetary relief… modest earnings do not absolve the husband from his legal and moral duty to provide maintenance.”

On the allegation that the petitioner was living an adulterous life, the Court made it explicitly clear that:

“Accusations based on media reports and public perception cannot substitute cogent legal evidence… In the absence of any clear material on record that the aggrieved person has remarried or is living a separate marital life, such allegations cannot take the place of proof to shun responsibility.”

The Court further clarified that the “term 'accustomed' under Section 20(2) of the PWDV Act refers to the standard of living the wife was used to during the subsistence of marriage and not to the post-separation increase or decrease in the husband's wealth.”

In its sharp critique of the trial court’s mechanical approach, the Court remarked:

“The court cannot accept the submission of the wife that the maintenance must match the husband’s wealth for equalization, but it equally cannot accept the husband’s assertion that by paying a meagre amount, he fulfills his responsibility.”

The Court took note of the husband’s annual income of ₹7.19 crores for FY 2020-21, translating to a monthly income of approximately ₹60 lakhs, and compared it against the wife’s declared income of ₹16,000 per month, while considering the rising cost of living and the child’s educational needs.

Finding the earlier amounts granted as wholly inadequate, the Court ordered:

“A sum of ₹1,50,000 per month to the petitioner (wife) and ₹2,50,000 per month for her minor daughter would be just, fair, and reasonable, to ensure financial stability for both the petitioners till the disposal of the main application.”

The Court emphasized that the “amount shall be payable from the date of filing of the interim application under Section 23 of the PWDV Act, in line with the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajnesh v. Neha, (2021) 2 SCC 324.”

Further, it clarified that the father shall always be at liberty to voluntarily contribute towards additional educational or special expenses for the child over and above the fixed amount.

In strong words, the Court directed the trial court to expedite the final disposal of the main application:

“The Trial Court is directed to dispose of the main application as early as possible, preferably within 60 days from the date of its first hearing, keeping in mind the legislative intent of the PWDV Act and the mandate of Section 12.”

It also cautioned:

“While disposing of the application filed under Section 12 of the PWDV Act finally, the Court below shall come to a finding on the basis of evidence and documents placed before it and shall not be influenced by any observation made herein.”

The Calcutta High Court, through this judgment, has once again reaffirmed that “maintenance is not a tool for extortion, nor is it designed to ensure equal wealth distribution, but it is a protective measure to secure the dignity, financial security, and standard of living of the aggrieved spouse and child.”

Rejecting both exorbitant, exaggerated claims by the wife and the husband’s attempt to underplay his obligations, the Court struck a fine balance between fairness, legal duty, and the underlying purpose of social welfare statutes like the PWDV Act.

Date of Decision: 1st July 2025