Section 32 Arbitration Act | Termination for Non-Payment of Fees Ends Arbitrator’s Mandate; Remedy Lies in Section 14(2): Supreme Court False Allegations of Dowry and Bigamy Amount to Mental Cruelty: Madras High Court Upholds Divorce Plaintiff Must Prove Her Own Title Before Seeking Demolition Of Defendant’s Pre-existing House: Andhra Pradesh High Court Mismatch Between Bullet and Recovered Gun Fatal to Prosecution: Calcutta High Court Acquits Man Convicted for Murder Where the Conduct of the Sole Eye-Witness Appears Unnatural and No Independent Witness Is Examined, Conviction Cannot Stand: Allahabad High Court Fraudulent Sale of Vehicle During Hire Purchase Renders Agreement Void: Gauhati High Court Upholds Decree for Refund of ₹4.90 Lakhs Unsigned Written Statement Can’t Silence a Defendant: Hyper-Technical Objections Must Yield to Substantive Justice: Delhi High Court Default Bail | No Accused, No Extension: Delhi High Court Rules Custody Extension Without Notice as Gross Illegality Under Article 21 Gratuity Can Be Withheld Post-Retirement for Proven Negligence Under Service Rules – Payment of Gratuity Act Does Not Override CDA Rules: Calcutta High Court Cognizance Is of the Offence, Not the Offender: Madras High Court Rejects Challenge to ED’s Supplementary Complaint in PMLA Case Acquittal in Rajasthan No Bar to Trial in Madhya Pradesh: MP High Court Rejects Double Jeopardy Plea in Antiquities Theft Case 20% Deposit Isn’t Automatic in Cheque Bounce Appeals: Right to Appeal Can’t Be Priced Out: Punjab & Haryana High Court Checks Mechanical Use of Section 148 NI Act A Child Is Not a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Sets New Benchmark in Compensation for Minors’ Deaths 90 Days Is Not Sacrosanct – Courts Can Permit Reply to Counter-Claim Even Beyond Prescribed Time in Interest of Justice: Punjab & Haryana High Court Magistrate Can Proceed Only for Offences Committed in India Until Sanction Is Obtained for Acts Outside India: Orissa High Court on International Financial Fraud Award Is Vitiated by Non-Consideration of Material Evidence: Orissa High Court Sets Aside Industrial Tribunal’s Wage Award in IMFA Case POCSO | Absence of Child's Name in Birth Certificate Not Fatal: Kerala High Court No One Has the Right to Impute Illicit Motives to Judges in the Name of Free Speech: Karnataka High Court Jails Man for Criminal Contempt DV Complaint Cannot Be Quashed at Threshold Under Article 227: Madras High Court Refuses to Interfere, Directs Accused to Seek Remedy Before Magistrate

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