Calcutta High Court: In two revision applications filed by the husband and the wife, assailing the order dated 30-12-2023, wherein the Judicial Magistrate reduced the quantum of maintenance granted to the wife from Rs. 30,000 per month to Rs. 20,000 per month, the Single Judge Bench of Bibhas Ranjan De, J, through a common judgement, held that maintenance is not merely a handout for subsistence but rather a tool to maintain lifestyle. The Court further directed the husband to pay Rs. 25,000 per month as maintenance with a 5 per cent hike every two years to account for inflation.
The petitioner (wife) and the respondent (husband) had a male child born out of wedlock. Due to marital discords, the wife had initiated maintenance proceedings under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC). The wife was granted Rs. 30,000 per month as maintenance which was subsequently reduced to Rs. 20,000 per month through an order passed by the Magistrate in an application filed under Section 127 of the CrPC.
The instant revision applications were filed by the wife and the husband, challenging the order of reduction of maintenance which were disposed by a common judgement.
The wife contended that the husband had tried to suppress his actual income and claimed a meagre salary to evade maintenance. Whereas the husband’s contention was centred around the factum of his financial constraint due to his retirement from service, his own medical expenses and the fact that their 25-year-old son was no longer a dependant.
The Court noted that while determining the quantum of maintenance, the following factors are considered:
- Residential comfort
- Health care standards
- Social and economic status of both parties
- Qualification and employment
- Sources of income and assets
- Marital standard of living benchmark
-
Inflation
The Court further opined that there have been drastic changes in society with regards to marital obligations and the judicial approach on the grant of maintenance must reflect that. It was stated that maintenance is no longer a handout to barely cover subsistence, but is rather a tool to preserve lifestyle stability. Maintenance must be understood as support for continuity of living rather than a compensation for separation. The Court also stated that the maintenance awarded must mirror the lifestyle of the wife during the period of their married life.
Furthermore, the Court noted the irony of the husband’s claim of not being able to pay Rs. 20,000 per month as maintenance, when he admittedly spent Rs. 15,000 per month just on his driver’s salary. Accordingly, the Court directed the husband to pay maintenance to the tune of Rs. 25,000 per month along with 5 per cent hike every two years considering automatic adjustment for inflation.
[X v. Y, C.R.R. No. 770 of 2024, decided on 18-7-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner: Avik Ghatak, Afreen Begum, Swastika Chowdhury, Advocates.
For the Respondent: Asit Baran Raut, Ishita Raut, Tuhin Subhra Raut, Atul Basak, Advocates.
Buy Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 HERE
