The Calcutta High Court has partly allowed a husband’s challenge to ongoing maintenance proceedings, holding that an ex parte divorce does not by itself end a divorced wife’s right to seek maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). At the same time, the Court set aside maintenance granted to the couple’s daughter, who had already attained majority before the maintenance case was filed.
Justice Uday Kumar delivered the oral judgment on September 7, 2026, in CRR 1438 of 2024, titled Samar Paul v. The State of West Bengal and Anr.
The husband and wife were married on February 11, 1995, and had two children. Following serious matrimonial disputes and multiple legal proceedings, the wife initiated maintenance proceedings in 2019.
The trial court granted interim maintenance of Rs. 3,500 per month—Rs. 1,500 for the wife and Rs. 2,000 for their daughter. Meanwhile, the petitioner-husband obtained an ex parte divorce decree on June 20, 2022. The wife subsequently moved to set aside that decree, and the application remained pending.
The husband argued that the divorce brought his maintenance liability to an end and that the daughter was already a major when the maintenance case was filed.
The High Court rejected the argument that divorce automatically terminates a former wife’s entitlement under Section 125 CrPC. Referring to Explanation (b) to Section 125(1), the Court noted that the statutory definition of “wife” includes a divorced woman who has not remarried.
"the dissolution of a marriage, even though a decree secured by the husband, does not ipso facto wipe out his statutory obligation to maintain his former wife, provided she remains unmarried and unable to maintain herself."
However, the Court took a different view regarding the daughter. It noted that Section 125(1)(c) permits maintenance for a major child only where physical or mental abnormality or injury prevents the child from maintaining herself. The daughter had attained majority in October 2017 and was stated to be healthy.
The High Court partly allowed the revision petition. It upheld continuation of the maintenance proceedings concerning wife and her entitlement as a divorced wife who had not remarried.
The maintenance order and execution proceedings concerning the daughter were set aside. The Court also stayed coercive execution against the husband, subject to his depositing 50% of the genuine accumulated arrears relating only to the wife’s share within four weeks. The trial court was directed to make efforts to conclude the pending maintenance case through a reasoned final order as expeditiously as possible.
