MACT | A Minor Cannot Be Treated as a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consensual Love Affair Not Cheating Under IPC Section 417: Madras High Court Acquits Man Despite Paternity Confirmation Review Jurisdiction is an Ant-Hole in a Pigeon-Hol: Madras High Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Order Upholding Arbitral Award on Liquidated Damages Bank Can Freeze Guarantor’s Salary Account to Recover Loan Dues: Kerala High Court Clarifies CPC Exemption Does Not Apply to Banker’s Right Revenue Entry Calling Property ‘Ancestral’ Does Not Create Title: Gujarat High Court Upholds Registered Will in Second Appeal Licensee Cannot Resist Resumption Of Railway Land: Gauhati High Court Upholds Eviction For Amrit Bharat Station Scheme Mere Non-Payment of Business Dues Is Not Cheating: Calcutta High Court Protects Traders from Criminal Prosecution in Purely Civil Dispute Prosecution’s Failure to Prove Age of Prosecutrix Beyond Reasonable Doubt Fatal to POCSO Conviction: Rajasthan High Court No Title, No Right, No Equity: Bombay High Court Demolishes Claim Over Footpath Stall, Imposes ₹5 Lakh Costs for Abuse of Process Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Complainant From Seeking Magistrate’s Permission: Allahabad High Court Clarifies Law on Non-Cognizable Investigations Un-Retracted Section 108 Statement Is Binding: Delhi High Court Declines to Reopen ₹3.5 Crore Cigarette Smuggling Valuation Section 34 Is Not an Appeal in Disguise: Delhi High Court Upholds 484-Day Extension in IRCON–Afcons Tunnel Arbitration Section 432(2) Cannot Be Rendered Fatuous: Calcutta High Court Reasserts Balance Between Judicial Opinion and Executive Discretion in Remission Matters Termination of Mandate Is Not Termination of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Revives Reference and Appoints Substitute Arbitrator CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints

Overlapping Maintenance Claims Under Various Statutes Should Consider Set-off of Amounts Awarded in Previous Proceedings: Calcutta High Court Upholds Lower Court's Maintenance and Stridhan Awards

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling addressing the overlapping maintenance claims under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and Section 3 of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986, the Calcutta High Court has upheld the lower courts' decisions to provide maintenance and return of 'stridhan' (dowry-like gifts) to the wife, observing that overlapping claims should be adjusted to avoid double relief. The Hon’ble Justice Shampa Dutt (Paul) cited the Supreme Court's directions from Rajnesh vs. Neha & Anr., stating, "Where successive claims for maintenance are made by a party under different statutes, the court would consider an adjustment or set-off of the amount awarded in the previous proceeding(s)."

Legal Background and Issues

The revision petitions, CRR 868 of 2020 and CRR 3014 of 2019, arose from concurrent maintenance proceedings under the Criminal Procedure Code and the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act. Both legislations were invoked by the wife after her divorce, leading to separate claims under each act.

Facts and Judicial History

Md. Shariful Islam Malita, the petitioner, was directed by lower courts to provide maintenance and return dowry gifts including gold ornaments and household items to his wife, Renuka Khatun, following their divorce. The overlapping claims from separate legal statutes led to multiple awards from different courts, raising issues of potential double relief.

Detailed Court Assessment

Justice Dutt meticulously discussed the evidence presented, including the lack of substantiating evidence from the petitioner regarding the return of dowry items, emphasizing the necessity for concrete proof in disputes over marriage gifts. "The petitioner/husband has contended that they have returned the said gold ornaments but could not produce any documents or other materials to substantiate the said statement," noted the judge in her ruling.

Further, the court affirmed the previous judgments awarding maintenance to the wife and returning the stridhan, aligning with the Supreme Court guidelines aimed at ensuring fairness and avoiding duplication in maintenance proceedings. The detailed review and application of these guidelines reinforce the need for judicial consistency and clarity in handling overlapping legal claims.

Decision The High Court dismissed the revisional applications filed by both husband and wife, thereby upholding the decisions of the lower courts. The orders directed the husband to provide maintenance and return dowry gifts, in compliance with both Section 125 Cr.P.C. and Section 3 of the Muslim Women Act, after adjusting the previously awarded amounts.

Date of Decision: May 1, 2024

Md. Shariful Islam Malita vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors.

Latest Legal News