At the Stage of Framing Charge, Presumption Suffices; Suicide Note and Grave Suspicion Enough: Allahabad High Court Refuses to Quash Charge Under Section 306 IPC 173 CrPC | Framing of Charge Marks End of Investigation—Complainant Cannot Reopen Probe Merely by Citing Police Lapses: Bombay High Court Recovery Alone Cannot Prove Guilt: Andhra Pradesh High Court Acquits Accused in Murder Case Photos, Videos Must Go: Supreme Court Binds Warring Spouses to Clean Up Social Media in Matrimonial Settlement Standard for Bail Under Section 319 CrPC Is Higher Than Framing of Charge, But Short of Conviction: Supreme Court Grants Bail to Accused Summoned Mid-Trial State Cannot Arbitrarily Deny Subsidies to 'New Industrial Units' by Retrospectively Applying Expansion Caps: Supreme Court Companies Act | Offence Under Section 448 Is Covered Under Section 447: Supreme Court Bars Private Complaint Without SFIO Nod “See-To-It” Obligation Is Not A Guarantee Under Indian Law: Supreme Court Clarifies Scope Of Section 126 ICA In IBC Disputes Mere Employment of Litigant’s Relatives in Police or Court Doesn't Prove Judicial Bias: Supreme Court Sets Aside Transfer of Criminal Case Reserved Candidate Availing Relaxed Standards in Prelims Cannot Migrate to General Quota for Cadre Allocation: Supreme Court Mere Vesting Does Not Mean Possession: Supreme Court Rules ULC Proceedings Abated For Failure To Serve Mandatory Notice To Actual Occupants Contempt of Courts Act | Natural Justice in Administrative Action: Supreme Court Directs West Bengal Govt to Re-Adjudicate Teachers' Arrears Claims Live-In Relationship with Married Man Not a ‘Relationship in the Nature of Marriage’ Under Domestic Violence Act: Bombay High Court Applies Supreme Court Guidelines Income Tax Act | Substitution of Shares held as Stock-in-Trade upon Amalgamation constitutes Taxable Business Income if Commercially Realisable: Supreme Court Judges Cannot Enact Their Own Protocols During Bail Hearings: Supreme Court Sets Aside Sweeping Age Determination Directions In POCSO If There Is Knowledge That Injury Is Likely To Cause Death, But No Intention Falls Under Section 304 Part II:  Supreme Court High Court Ignored POCSO’s Statutory Rigour, Committed Grave Error in Granting Bail: Supreme Court Cancels Bail of Gang-Rape Accused Section 22 HSA | Co-Heirs Have Statutory Right of Pre-Emption Even in Urban Property: Punjab & Haryana High Court 138 NI Act | Issuance of Separate Cheques Gives Rise to Independent Causes of Action, Even if Drawn for Same Underlying Transaction: Supreme Court

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