Registrar Has No Power To Cancel Registered Sale Deeds: Madras High Court Reaffirms Civil Court’s Exclusive Jurisdiction MP High Court Refuses to Quash FIR Against Principal of Sacred Heart Convent High School in Forced Conversion Case Employees Of Registered Societies Cannot Claim Article 311 Protection: Delhi High Court Clarifies Limits Of Constitutional Safeguards In Private Employment Maintenance Cannot Be Doubled Without Cogent Reasons, Wife's Education And Earning Capacity Relevant Factors: Gujarat High Court A Foreign Award Must First Be "Recognised" Before It Becomes A Decree: Bombay High Court A Registered Will Does Not Become Genuine Merely Because It Is Registered: Andhra Pradesh High Court Rejects Suspicious Testament Compensation Under Railways Act Requires Proof of Bona Fide Passenger – Mere GRP Entry and Medical Records Cannot Establish ‘Untoward Incident’: Delhi High Court Tenancy Rights Cannot Be Bequeathed By Will: Himachal Pradesh High Court Declares Mutation Based On Tenant’s Will Void Preventive Detention Cannot Be Based On Mere Apprehension of Bail: Delhi High Court Quashes PITNDPS Detention Order Probate Court Alone Has Exclusive Jurisdiction To Decide Validity Of Will – Probate Petition Cannot Be Rejected Merely Because A Civil Suit Is Pending: Allahabad High Court PwD Candidates Cannot Be Denied Appointment After Selection; Authorities Must Accommodate Them In Suitable Posts: Supreme Court Directs SSC And CAG To Appoint Candidates With Disabilities When Registered Partition Deed Exists, Plea Of Prior Oral Partition Cannot Override It:  Madras High Court Dismisses Second Appeal Municipal Bodies Cannot Demand Character Verification Of Residents: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Surveillance Condition In Building Sanction State Cannot Exploit Contractual Workers For Perennial Work: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Pay Parity To PUNBUS Drivers And Conductors Police Inputs Cannot Create New Building Laws: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Security-Based Conditions Near Nabanna 'Raising A Child As Daughter Does Not Make Her An Adopted Child': Punjab & Haryana High Court Once Leave Under Section 80(2) CPC Is Granted, Prior Notice to Government Is Not Mandatory: Orissa High Court Restores Trial Court Decree State Cannot Use Article 226 To Evade Compliance With Court Orders: Gauhati High Court Dismisses Union’s Petition With Costs ED Officers Accused Of Assault By ₹23-Crore Scam Accused – FIR Survives But Probe Shifted To CBI: Jharkhand High Court High Courts Should Not Interfere In Academic Integrity Proceedings At Preliminary Stage: Kerala High Court Power Of Attorney Holder With Personal Knowledge Can Depose In Cheque Bounce Cases: Kerala High Court Sets Aside Acquittal Agreement Cannot Dissolve Hindu Marriage, But Can Prove Mutual Separation”: J&K & Ladakh High Court Denies Maintenance

Maintenance Must Reflect Living Costs and Income: Calcutta High Court Raises Maintenance of Wife

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant judgment that underscores the evolving nature of maintenance laws, the High Court of Kolkata, presided over by Hon’ble Justice Subhendu Samanta, has set a new precedent by enhancing the maintenance allowance of a petitioner, citing the necessity for it to be “commensurate with the income of the husband and the rising living costs.”

The case, Anjana Saha Vs. Subrata Sil & Anr., revolved around the petitioner, Anjana Saha, seeking an increase in her maintenance allowance. Originally set at Rs. 5,000 per month in 2003, the petitioner argued for an increase to Rs 12,500, pointing to escalated living expenses and the husband’s income as a railway employee. The Learned Magistrate initially revised the maintenance to Rs 6,500, which was contested as insufficient.

In his ruling, Justice Samanta noted, “In today’s economic context, a maintenance amount of Rs 6,500 is inadequate for a person to maintain a basic standard of living.” This observation is pivotal, highlighting the court’s recognition of the economic challenges faced by individuals seeking maintenance.

The High Court’s decision to increase the maintenance to Rs 10,000 marks a significant shift in the judicial approach towards maintenance cases. The judgment emphasizes the need for maintenance amounts to reflect the current economic realities and the earning capacities of individuals.

Justice Samanta’s decision also addressed the lack of substantial evidence regarding the husband’s income and liabilities. He referenced the Supreme Court’s guidelines in Rajnish Vs. Neha (2021) 2 SCC 324, which mandates the exchange of income and expenditure affidavits between parties, a practice not followed in this case.

In a critical observation, the judge stated that “The observation of the Criminal court in a criminal case initiated u/s 498A or 406 IPC between the husband and wife shall not disentitle the wife to get the compensation or enhanced compensation u/s 127 Cr.P.C.” This aspect of the judgment ensures that the outcome of criminal proceedings does not adversely impact maintenance claims, a point that has significant implications for future cases.

Date of Decision: 20 November 2023

Anjana Saha  VS Subrata Sil & Anr.  

Latest Legal News