The Calcutta High Court has ruled that maintenance under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) is no longer just a basic support mechanism for survival. Instead, it should ensure a stable lifestyle for the dependent spouse, aligning with modern social and judicial standards.
Justice Bibhas Ranjan De, presiding over a single bench, observed:
“The present time and age there has been a drastic change in the society with relation to marital obligations. Therefore, this sharp fluctuation demands for a change in the judicial approach towards the grant of maintenance as well, as maintenance is no longer a hand out to barely cover subsistence. Rather it has now become a tool to preserve lifestyle stability. As a sequel, it fundamentally reposition spousal support as a continuity of living, not compensation for separation.”
Read also:- Madhya Pradesh High Court Stays 'Udaipur Files' Release by Applying Delhi HC Order
Background of the Case
This ruling came in response to two revision applications filed by both spouses. The wife challenged a Magistrate's order reducing her maintenance from ₹30,000 to ₹20,000. The husband also filed a revision petition seeking a further reduction in the amount.
The couple was married and had a male child. Due to matrimonial disputes, the wife filed an application under Section 125 CrPC, which initially resulted in a ₹30,000 monthly maintenance order. Following the husband's retirement, he applied under Section 127 CrPC for a reduction. The Magistrate then reduced the amount to ₹20,000.
Read also:- Madras High Court: ED Cannot Act Without Predicate Offence or Proceeds of Crime
The wife’s counsel argued that:
“Maintenance is not a charity but a legal duty. The husband has tried to evade this obligation by hiding his actual income and showing a lower salary. This is not legally valid.”
It was emphasized that the wife, being a homemaker, lives with her adult son who is still dependent on her. The reduction in maintenance was termed unjust, as the entire household survives solely on this support.
The husband's legal team denied the wife’s claims and maintained that:
- The ₹20,000 maintenance was fixed based on verified Income Tax returns.
- The wife had independent income from fixed deposits in two bank accounts.
- Their adult son earns by providing tuition.
- The wife was in possession of their home, and the husband had been driven out since 2004.
Read also:- SC Slams Allahabad HC for Misusing Quashing Powers in Civil Dispute
The Court clarified that Income Tax returns cannot be treated as conclusive proof of income. These returns are self-declared and often subject to misrepresentation or underreporting.
“Courts need to look beyond narrow income affidavits and assess real financial capacity, including assets, past income, and earning potential. This approach discourages suppression of income and ensures fair support,” the Court stated.
It also pointed out that the husband, while admitting to paying ₹15,000 monthly for a driver, was unwilling to pay ₹20,000 to the woman who had shared her life and bore him a child.
Read also:- Drivers Licensed for ‘Transport Vehicles’ Can Drive Passenger Buses, Rules J&K High Court
“Any settlement must reflect actual living standards and inflation. Women who have dedicated their lives to domestic duties deserve to live with dignity post-separation,” the Court emphasized.
The Court revised the maintenance to ₹25,000 per month, with an additional 5% increase every two years to adjust for inflation and changing living costs.
Case Title: Tumpa Basak vs. Tufan Basak
Case No.: C.R.R. 770 of 2024