Permanent Alimony Under Hindu Marriage Act Doesn’t Bar Maintenance Under Section 125 CrPC”: Calcutta High Court

“Maintenance under Section 125 CrPC is a continuing obligation — even after a decree of permanent alimony, enhancement is legally permissible based on change in circumstances.”
— Justice Bibhas Ranjan De, Calcutta High Court In a judgment that brings clarity to a long-debated legal issue, the Calcutta High Court has ruled hat an order granting permanent alimony under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act does not bar a wife from seeking enhanced maintenance under Section 127 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). The Court emphasized that both legal provisions, though overlapping in effect, serve distinct legal purposes and must be interpreted harmoniously to avoid injustice.

Delivering the verdict on 25th September 2025, in the case titled Amar Kumar Pal v. Sutapa Bhadra, CRR No. 4188 of 2024 with CRR No. 697 of 2024, Justice Bibhas Ranjan De held that maintenance under CrPC is a dynamic and continuing obligation, and a wife can seek enhancement of maintenance under Section 127 CrPC if there is a proven change in circumstances, such as increase in the husband's income or change in her needs.

The judgment modifies the order of the Barasat Magistrate Court, which had earlier directed the husband to pay ₹30,000 per month to his wife from the date of the application in 2012, over and above ₹20,000 granted as permanent alimony by a matrimonial court. The High Court upheld the enhanced amount but corrected the effective date, ruling that it must apply prospectively from the date of the Magistrate’s order — i.e., 20.08.2024.

“CrPC and Hindu Marriage Act Are Independent But Must Be Harmonised”: Court Applies Rajnesh v. Neha

The Court extensively relied on the principles laid down in the Supreme Court’s landmark ruling in Rajnesh v. Neha, (2021) 2 SCC 324, which clarified how courts must deal with overlapping maintenance orders under different statutes like CrPC, the Domestic Violence Act, and the Hindu Marriage Act.

Quoting from the Apex Court judgment, Justice Bibhas Ranjan De reiterated:

“It is well settled that a wife can make a claim for maintenance under different statutes. While doing so, the court must ensure that adjustment or set-off is granted so as to prevent double benefits.”

Applying this, the High Court observed: “The order of permanent alimony under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act is not an absolute bar to subsequent applications for enhancement under Section 125 or 127 CrPC. Both provisions aim to ensure support based on prevailing circumstances, and are subject to change.” [Para 21]

Wife Entitled to Enhanced Maintenance Based on Change in Husband’s Income

The wife had initially been awarded ₹1,500 per month in 2012 under Section 125 CrPC. Later, through a matrimonial proceeding under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, she was awarded permanent alimony of ₹20,000 per month.

In 2012, she also filed an application under Section 127 CrPC seeking enhancement. After extensive delays — caused partly by the husband’s repeated failure to disclose his income or assets, as mandated in Rajnesh v. Neha — the Magistrate passed an order in 2024 directing enhanced maintenance of ₹30,000 per month, starting from May 2012.

The High Court held that while the quantum of ₹10,000 as enhancement was justified, the Magistrate erred in making the enhanced amount retrospective:

“At the time of filing the application in 2012, the husband’s salary stood at ₹65,000. The enhancement was granted based on his 2024 income. Therefore, the order should have taken effect only from the date of the order, not retrospectively.” [Para 18]

Husband’s Repeated Non-Compliance with Court Orders Leads to Adverse Inference

Despite clear directions from the Hon’ble Co-ordinate Bench and multiple opportunities, the husband did not file the mandatory affidavit of assets and liabilities. The Trial Court, therefore, proceeded based on the wife’s affidavit, which disclosed substantial salary increments.

The High Court found no fault in this approach:

“Given the petitioner/husband's failure to file any financial disclosure, the Magistrate was justified in accepting the wife's affidavit as the only available material. The Trial Court's reliance on her affidavit was fair, reasonable, and in line with the law.” [Paras 14–17, 22]

Inherent Powers of Court Not Invoked; Revisions Allowed Only on Limited Grounds

Senior Counsel Mr. Ayan Bhattacharya, appearing for the husband, argued that once permanent alimony is granted, any further enhancement can only be claimed under Section 25(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act, and not under CrPC.

Rejecting this argument, the Court held that:

“Applications for enhancement under CrPC are maintainable post-decree of permanent alimony, as long as there is a change in circumstances justifying such modification.” [Para 21]

Further, the Court declined to invoke its inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC, holding that the case was well within the scope of revisional jurisdiction under Sections 397 and 401 CrPC, and interference was warranted only to the extent of correcting the retrospective operation of the Magistrate’s order.

The Calcutta High Court finally held: “The petitioner/husband is directed to pay maintenance to the tune of ₹10,000 per month, in addition to the ₹20,000 permanent alimony, from the date of the Magistrate’s order (20.08.2024) and not from the date of the application (19.05.2012).” [Para 26]

The revisions were partly allowed, and all interim orders and connected applications were disposed of.

 “Clear and Fair Balance Between Statutes”

Ms. Jharna Biswas, appearing for the wife, welcomed the judgment:

“This ruling recognises the lived realities of separated women whose needs evolve, and whose claims cannot be dismissed merely due to a civil decree passed years ago.”

On the other hand, Mr. Bhattacharya stated: “While we respect the Court’s decision, the principle that permanent alimony can be reopened under CrPC needs careful application in future cases to prevent multiplicity of proceedings.”

Family lawyers across the bar agree that the High Court’s ruling draws a balanced line, reaffirming that CrPC maintenance is not a static entitlement, and courts must evaluate claims based on current needs and income, even if prior civil awards exist

Date of Decision: 25 September 2025