Calcutta High Court: In the present petition, the wife challenged the Family Court’s judgment rejecting her request for maintenance under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (‘CrPC’). The husband argued that he was unemployed after being dismissed from his job and claimed that the wife earned enough to cover her daily expenses. A Single Judge Bench of Dr. Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee, J., while allowing the petition, held that Section 125 CrPC aims to ensure the wife’s sustenance at the same status and strata as the husband, not merely animal sustenance. The Court observed that the wife’s earning of Rs 12,000 per month could not justify refusal of maintenance, especially since the husband admitted his economic status was higher.
Background:
The couple got married on 04-08-2012 under the Special Marriage Act, 1954 and returned to their respective paternal homes. The husband assured that a social marriage would be arranged, and the wife would be permanently taken to her matrimonial home. During the interim period, the husband lived with the wife at her paternal home, their marriage was consummated, and they stayed together as husband and wife. Despite repeated requests by the wife, the husband and his family avoided taking her to her matrimonial home. In August 2013, the husband stated that his parents were unwilling to accept her in Kolkata, and when the wife offered to live in Panagarh, the husband and his family became furious and pressured her for mutual divorce.
The wife filed an application under Section 125 CrPC seeking Rs 10,000 per month as maintenance and interim relief. The husband objected, but the trial court, by order dated 06-01-2015, directed him to pay Rs 4,000 per month from 01-01-2015 and Rs 5,000 towards litigation costs. This order was upheld by both the High Court and the Apex Court. However, the wife’s prayer for maintenance was dismissed by the Lower Court on 08-06-2023 after recording evidence and reviewing affidavits. Her criminal complaint under Sections 498A, 506, 406, and 114 of the Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’) ended in acquittal, while her domestic violence case under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (‘PWDV Act’) remained pending. She was granted interim relief of Rs 1,500 and Rs 3,000 for accommodation, which the husband unsuccessfully challenged. In a separate matrimonial proceeding, the wife was awarded Rs 4,000 per month as alimony pendent lite and Rs 10,000 as litigation cost, which was upheld by the High Court.
The wife argued that she was the legally married wife and there was no evidence of her deserting the matrimonial home or having sufficient income. She contended that the husband’s claim of being jobless due to his company winding up did not absolve him of his moral and legal duty to maintain her. The Court erred in relying on the husband’s version and dismissed her claim on the ground that she earned Rs 12,000 per month, ignoring that such income might not have met her basic needs.
The husband claimed that the marriage was merely registered without family consent and that the wife never lived with him in her matrimonial home. He alleged that she avoided conjugal life despite repeated requests and falsely implicated him under Section 125 CrPC. He stated that she was employed and earning Rs 12,000 per month, while he had been unemployed since 01-04-2014 after being sacked from his job. The Trial Court dismissed the wife’s maintenance claim, relying on her income and his unemployment, which the wife argued was a flawed and speculative basis that ignored her hardship and the husband’s higher lifestyle and family status.
Analysis and Decision:
The Court emphasised that in evidence, the husband admitted his family’s status was higher than the wife’s paternal family and that he led the same lifestyle with his parents, with his father allegedly maintaining all expenses. The Court noted the husband adopted contradictory defences alleging refusal of conjugal rights by the wife, while simultaneously disputing the marriage on grounds of non-consummation.
The Court observed that the determining factor was the lifestyle and strata the petitioner was entitled to at her matrimonial house, and whether her income of Rs 12,000 was sufficient to maintain that lifestyle. The Court highlighted that the Judge, while refusing maintenance despite holding the wife’s entitlement, weighed only the husband’s alleged unemployment and the wife’s meagre income, ignoring the principle of equal strata and lifestyle. The Court noted that the husband could not benefit from his own wrong or wilful decision.
The Court emphasised it was evident the husband had been sacked due to his own default irregularity and, not being disabled, could not remain unemployed unless by choice, since this wilful act did not fall under “not having sufficient means” to maintain the wife. The Court observed that unemployment could not shield the husband from legal obligation or justify compelling the wife to endure hardship, ignoring the lifestyle and strata she was entitled to.
The Court noted it was well settled that mere earning by the wife did not render her ineligible for maintenance, since the object of Section 125 CrPC was to ensure sustenance at the same status and strata as the husband, not mere animal sustenance. The Court emphasised that the wife’s earning of Rs 12,000 per month could not justify refusal of maintenance, especially when the husband admitted his higher economic status. The Court further highlighted that there was nothing to show the wife earned sufficiently to maintain herself at the same status and strata, and the husband had not adduced any positive evidence.
The Court observed that suffering sentence in default of payment did not reduce the husband’s responsibility to pay maintenance. The Court emphasised that a Court of competent jurisdiction could not shirk its responsibility of doing justice by branding the husband as a ‘poor penniless person’ and advising the wife to maintain herself within her income, especially when it was admitted that her income was small and the husband’s family status was higher.
The Court emphasised that as per law, the wife was entitled to lead a life similar to what she would have lived in her husband’s house, where the status and strata of the husband came into play and his legal obligation became prominent. The Court noted that as long as she was held entitled to maintenance under Section 125 CrPC, it had to be awarded so she could live with dignity as in her matrimonial home and not be compelled to become a destitute. The Court further observed it was the husband’s obligation to maintain his wife, and he could not take the plea of financial constraint as long as he was capable of earning.
The Court concluded that there was no denial of the fact that the husband was an able-bodied young man capable of earning and he could not simply deny his legal obligation to maintain his wife in accordance with her status and strata. The Court further held that the mere fact that the wife was earning some amount of money to survive, having allegedly been thrown out of her matrimonial home, could not be a reason to deny maintenance, which was the husband’s social, legal, and moral responsibility.
The Court, therefore, found the order dated 08-06-2023 to be speculative and legally unsustainable, and set it aside. The Court directed the husband to pay Rs 4,000 per month as maintenance to the wife from the date of filing the application, by the 10th of each succeeding month. The Court further ordered that the arrears be cleared in twelve equal monthly instalments by 31-10-2026, failing which the wife would have liberty to execute the order before the appropriate Court in accordance with law.
[Rinki Chakraborty Nee Das v. State of West Bengal, 2025 SCC OnLine Cal 7647, decided on 12-09-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner: Satadru Lahiri, Mahua Chattopadhyay, Safdar Azam
For the Opposite Party: Sandipan Ganguly, Debajyoti Deb, Shyamal Mondal, Somdyuti Parekh
Buy Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 HERE
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
