Calcutta High Court Quashes Rs 14,000 Maintenance Hike For Army Man’s Wife

The Calcutta High Court has set aside an order that raised monthly maintenance for an Army man’s wife from Rs 7,000 to Rs 14,000, holding that the magistrate fixed the higher amount without recording evidence or assessing the husband’s actual income and financial capacity.

Justice Chaitali Chatterjee Das heard the woman’s plea for maintenance for herself and her son under the Domestic Violence (DV) Act. The court said the magistrate raised the amount without first carrying out the fact-finding needed to fix the right sum.

The High Court held that the magistrate neither examined the husband’s earning capacity nor explained the basis for the increase. That defect, the court held, made the enhancement unsustainable and required a fresh determination after proper financial disclosures by both sides.

Marriage And Separation

They wed in December 1989 under Muslim rites. The marriage was later registered before a Muslim registrar and kazi appointed by the West Bengal government.

They had two children—a daughter and a son. The husband joined the Indian Army in 1991 and served as a havildar.

The wife said the marriage broke down over time and that she suffered physical and mental cruelty. She also said the husband left her in 2012 after a posting in North India, cutting off support for her and their son. The daughter died while the case was pending.

Maintenance Proceedings

The dispute then moved to maintenance.

Advocates Sobhendu Sekhar Roy, Debabriya Samanta and Samrat Ghosh appeared for the wife and said she had no income of her own. They added that she went to Army authorities, who then ordered deductions from the husband’s salary for her and her son’s maintenance.

She later filed proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act seeking maintenance. A magistrate first granted Rs 7,000 a month and later enhanced it to Rs 14,000 a month.

The husband challenged that increase before the appellate court. The appellate court reduced the amount to Rs 7,000 a month. The wife then moved the high court against that reduction.

Court’s Reasoning

The high court agreed with the appellate court that there was no proper basis to raise the maintenance from Rs 7,000 to Rs 14,000 a month. It held that the magistrate had passed the final order without recording evidence and without giving reasons for the increase.

The court also recorded that the son had already turned 18 before the maintenance application was filed. It held that he was therefore not entitled to maintenance under the Criminal Procedure Code.

Quoting from its September 28 order, the court said: “It is undisputed that the opposite party is in service…but he did not disclose his present income, which he is bound to produce before the court by filing an affidavit of assets and liabilities in consonance with the mandate of the apex court.”

Referring to Supreme Court principles, the high court noted that both parties must file affidavits of assets and liabilities. That process, it held, allows the court to assess actual income and determine the proper maintenance amount.

The court added that at the stage of final determination, both sides must get an opportunity to produce evidence and cross-examine. It held that the magistrate failed to ascertain the husband’s actual income and financial capacity before fixing the amount.

Reasons matter, the court said. It found that the magistrate had not explained why maintenance was increased to Rs 14,000. The order said: “From the facts and circumstances, it is evident that the magistrate passed the final order without calling for any evidence and further failed to ascertain the actual income of the husband and also to assign any reason regarding the quantum so arrived at or even the entitlement of the applicant.”

Fresh Determination

The high court ultimately upheld the reduction of maintenance to Rs 7,000 a month. It held that the Rs 14,000 final maintenance order had been passed without evidence, without assessing the husband’s actual income and without reasons for the enhancement.

It directed both parties to file affidavits of assets and liabilities. The magistrate will now determine the appropriate maintenance afresh on that basis.