[S.125 CrPC] Maintenance Is No Longer Granted To Barely Cover Subsistence, But As A Tool To Maintain Lifestyle: Calcutta HC

The Calcutta High Court has held that due to the development in jurisprudence around granting maintenance, it is no longer handed out as a payment for subsistence but instead to preserve the stability of one's lifestyle.

A single bench of Justice Bibhas Ranjan De held:

"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 life style stability. As a sequel, it fundamentally reposition spousal support as a continuity of living, not compensation for separation."

Background

The present revision application was preferred by the wife/petitioner challenging an order passed by the Magistrate reducing the quantum of maintenance from Rs. 30,000/- granted under Section 125 of the CrPC to Rs. 20,000/- per month.

Another revision application was preferred by the husband/ petitioner challenging the same order with a prayer for further reduction in the quantum of maintenance from Rs. 20,000/-.

Both parties were married, and a male child was born out of wedlock. In the wake of matrimonial discord, the petitioner initiated proceedings under Section 125 CrPC for maintenance, which was disposed of by promulgating an order of maintenance to the tune of Rs. 30,000/- per month in favour of the petitioner/wife.

Considering the changed circumstances i.e. retirement of the opposite party /husband, an application under Section 127 CrPC was filed by the husband for seeking reduction of the maintenance which was also disposed of by an order thereby reducing the maintenance to the tune of Rs.20,000/- per month.

Counsel for the wife submitted that maintenance is not charity but a legal obligation of the husband. It was argued that the husband's attempt to evade maintenance by suppressing his actual earnings and thereby claiming a meager salary is non-est in the eye of law, as maintenance should actually reflect the dignity and standard of living that the wife was accustomed to during marriage, keeping in mind the concept of equi status.

It was also submitted that the petitioner is a home maker who lives with her son, who, although being an adult, is still completely dependent on her. Therefore, the petitioner has to sustain her livelihood only based on the maintenance that she receives from the opposite part,y which makes the order of reduction of maintenance even more unjustified.

Counsel for the husband denied all the facts and figures adduced by the petitioner in connection with his earnings. It was stated that the amount of maintenance which has already been given to the petitioner by the Magistrate, after determining the husband's income from his Income Tax records, is quite reasonable and justified as the petitioner can easily maintain herself with such a lump sum amount of Rs. 20,000/- per month.

It was further submitted that the wife has had her independent source of income from the fixed deposit made in her name in two different bank accounts, which have not been disclosed.

It was further argued that their son is now a major who earns a decent amount per month by way of imparting tuition.

Counsel also contended that the wife has been in possession of the entire dwelling house and virtually the estranged husband has been driven out of his own house since June 2004.

Court's verdict

Court noted that the income tax return of an individual cannot be considered as conclusive proof of his income, as the return is primarily based on the information provided by the taxpayer himself.

It was stated that the figures reported therein are subject to the taxpayer's understanding and interpretation, which is not always accurate or comprehensive. In addition, there is always a possibility of underreporting. Therefore, the actual income of an individual would indeed be very different from the figures shown in the income tax return; that is why the courts often look beyond I.T. returns while determining the income of a person, especially in proceedings such as maintenance cases.

It was stated that the Courts while determining the quantum of maintenance should not just examine the present income of the alimony prayer but also his potential, past earnings and assets, as this holistic approach breaks away from narrow income affidavits and opens doors to assess real financial capability, thus discouraging strategic under reporting or artificial income suppression to negate higher maintenance.

The court noted that in the case at hand, the husband himself admitted that he has to incur expenses to the tune of Rs. 15,000/- towards his driver's salary but, is not inclined to "pay maintenance to the tune of Rs. 20,000/- even to the person who has spent a considerable period of her life with him and also with whom he has a son."

"In this connection, it would be pertinent to mention that any settlements to be arrived at between the parties must take into account actual living standards and cost of inflation. On the other hand, it reinforces the idea that women who have devoted years to domestic responsibilities deserve to maintain a comparable life after separation," the court said.

Accordingly, the husband was directed to pay revised maintenance to the tune of Rs. 25,000/- per month along with a 5% hike every two years, considering the issue of adjustment for inflation.

Case: Tumpa Basak vs. Tufan Basak

Case No: C.R.R. 770 of 2024

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 175

Click here to read order