Retirement Does Not Relieve Marital Duties: Calcutta High Court Orders Enhanced Maintenance with Inflation-Linked Increment

“A Dignified Life After Separation Is A Right, Not A Handout”,  Justice Bibhas Ranjan De of the Calcutta High Court delivered a significant verdict, decisively upholding the principle that retirement is no shield for an estranged spouse to evade responsibility. The court observed, “Maintenance is not charity but a legal right aimed at preserving the dignity and lifestyle akin to that enjoyed during the marriage, with due consideration to inflation and evolving social standards.”

The judgment arose from competing revision petitions by an estranged couple—while the wife challenged a reduction of maintenance, the husband sought further reduction citing post-retirement financial limitations. The High Court balanced fairness and dignity, enhancing maintenance to ₹25,000 per month along with a 5% increment every two years.

Opening the discussion with clarity, the High Court remarked,
“Maintenance ensures continuity of living standards, not a mere subsistence for survival. The marital standard of living cannot be reduced to penury under the pretext of retirement.”

Justice Bibhas Ranjan De categorically dismissed the husband’s contention that his retirement justified a reduced financial obligation. The Court emphasized,
“Reduced financial capacity cannot erase the duty to ensure dignity for a dependent spouse.”

The case involved a separated couple where the wife initially received ₹30,000 per month under Section 125 of the CrPC. Upon the husband’s retirement, he secured an order reducing maintenance to ₹20,000 per month from December 30, 2023. The wife challenged this reduction, arguing that the order ignored the lifestyle she was accustomed to, as well as the husband’s accumulated wealth and assets, including market stalls and residential flats.

Justice De noted, “Retirement benefits, market properties, and unaccounted financial avenues paint a more accurate picture of the husband’s means than declared monthly income.”

Income Tax Returns Cannot Conceal Actual Wealth

The Court issued a sharp reminder on the limitations of relying on income tax returns in maintenance proceedings. Rejecting the husband’s reliance on his ₹5.13 lakh annual return, Justice De clarified,
“Income tax returns are not definitive in maintenance proceedings as they only reflect declared incomes, not the actual economic reality.”

The Court went further to stress,
“Judicial scrutiny must pierce beyond tax returns to uncover concealed assets, historic earnings, and lifestyle choices.”

Maintenance Reflects Marital Status, Not Current Earnings

Critiquing the mechanical approach of the lower court, the High Court stated,
“Post-separation maintenance should mirror the lifestyle enjoyed during marriage, not be dictated solely by post-retirement reduced cash flow.”

The Court frowned upon the irony of the husband paying ₹15,000 per month as a driver’s salary while resisting ₹20,000 maintenance to his wife, remarking,
“When luxury expenses are maintained, the duty towards a wife who shared years of companionship cannot be relegated.”

The estranged husband’s request to backdate the maintenance reduction from his retirement date was also rejected. Justice De concluded,
“The Court retains discretion under Section 127 CrPC to determine the effective date. Considering equity and justice, maintenance shall be payable from the date of the order and not from any earlier date.”

In its concluding paragraphs, the High Court ordered,
“The estranged wife is entitled to ₹25,000 per month with a 5% increase every two years to account for inflation, with effect from December 30, 2023.”

Further clarifying the underlying principle, Justice De observed,
“Maintenance must align with dignified sustenance reflective of marital life, ensuring the dependent spouse is not reduced to penury under the guise of legal technicalities.”

This judgment from the Calcutta High Court reiterates the settled position that maintenance is a right flowing from marriage, aimed at preserving dignity, not a mere token amount for subsistence. By granting incremental increases tied to inflation, the court delivered a progressive ruling that respects marital contributions and ensures fairness beyond retirement.

The Court summed up its view powerfully:
“Separation may dissolve cohabitation but cannot dissolve the duty to uphold dignity and fairness in sustenance.”

Date of Decision: 18th July 2025