Magistrate's Direction for Police Inquiry Under Section 202 CrPC Is Valid; Petitioner Must Await Investigation Outcome: Bombay High Court Dismisses Advocate's Petition as Premature    |     Tribunal’s Compensation Exceeding Claimed Amount Found Just and Fair Under Motor Vehicles Act: No Deduction Errors Warrant Reduction: Gujrat High Court    |     When Two Accused Face Identical Charges, One Cannot Be Convicted While the Other is Acquitted: Supreme Court Emphasizes Principle of Parity in Acquittal    |     Supreme Court Limits Interim Protection for Financial Institutions, Modifies Order on FIRs Filed by Borrowers    |     Kerala High Court Grants Regular Bail in Methamphetamine Case After Delay in Chemical Analysis Report    |     No Sign of Recent Intercourse; No Injury Was Found On Her Body Or Private Parts: Gauhati High Court Acquits Two In Gang Rape Case    |     Failure to Disclose Relationship with Key Stakeholder Led to Setting Aside of Arbitral Award: Gujarat High Court    |     Strict Compliance with UAPA's 7-Day Timeline for Sanctions is Essential:  Supreme Court    |     PAT Teachers Entitled to Regularization from 2014, Quashes Prospective Regularization as Arbitrary: Himachal Pradesh High Court    |     Punjab and Haryana High Court Upholds Anonymity Protections for Victims in Sensitive Cases: Right to Privacy Prevails Over Right to Information    |     Certified Copy of Will Admissible Under Registration Act, 1908: Allahabad HC Dismisses Plea for Production of Original Will    |     Injuries on Non-Vital Parts Do Not Warrant Conviction for Attempt to Murder: Madhya Pradesh High Court Modifies Conviction Under Section 307 IPC to Section 326 IPC    |     Classification Based on Wikipedia Data Inadmissible; Tribunal to Reassess Using Actual Financial Records: PH High Court Orders Reconsideration of Wage Dispute    |     Mere Delay in Initiation Does Not Justify Reduction of Damages: Jharkhand High Court on Provident Fund Defaults    |     Legatee Can Continue Suit Without Probate, But Decree Contingent on Probate Approval: Orissa High Court    |     An Award that Shocks the Conscience of the Court Cannot Stand, Especially When Public Money is Involved: Calcutta HC Reduces Quantum by Half    |     Trademark Transaction Within Territoriality Principle Subject to Indian Tax Laws: Bombay High Court Dismisses Hindustan Unilever's Petition on Non-Deduction of TDS    |     Concealment of Material Facts Bars Relief under Article 226: SC Reprimands Petitioners for Lack of Bonafides    |     Without Determination of the Will's Genuineness, Partition is Impossible: Supreme Court on Liberal Approach to Pleading Amendments    |     Candidates Cannot Challenge a Selection Process After Participating Without Protest : Delhi High Court Upholds ISRO's Administrative Officer Recruitment    |     Invalid Bank Guarantee Invocation Found Fatal to Recovery Claim: Delhi High Court Dismisses GAIL’s Appeal    |     Adverse Remarks in APAR Recorded Without Objectivity and Likely Motivated by Bias: Delhi High Court Quashes Biased APAR Downgrade of CRPF Officer    |    

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.  

Similar News