WEST BENGAL<\/em>: The Calcutta High Court<\/strong> has ruled that a spouse\u2019s earning capacity cannot be ignored while deciding interim maintenance <\/a>cases. The Court set aside an order granting \u20b912,000 monthly maintenance to a wife after finding that her financial status and professional background were not properly examined.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Justice Uday Kumar<\/strong> was hearing a revision petition filed by a husband who challenged an ex-parte order passed under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005<\/strong>. The lower court had directed him to pay \u20b912,000 per month to his wife and \u20b98,000 per month for their minor daughter.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The husband argued that his wife was not financially dependent, but a qualified doctor<\/strong> specialising in Critical Care Medicine who had worked as a Senior Registrar in reputed hospitals. He claimed she had suppressed her professional status and income while seeking maintenance.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The High Court noted that the Magistrate granted maintenance on the very same day the Domestic Incident Report was filed, without asking either side to submit Affidavits of Assets and Liabilities as required under the Supreme Court judgment in Rajnesh v. Neha<\/em><\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Court observed that the disclosure rules laid down by the Supreme Court are mandatory and cannot be ignored<\/strong>. It held that passing maintenance orders without proper financial disclosure creates serious procedural defects.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In a major observation, the Court said:<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cThe law does not expect a highly qualified person to sit idle and remain a financial burden on the other spouse, especially when there is no physical or mental disability preventing them from working.\u201d<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n The Court further held that:<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cThe Court must take into consideration… the educational and professional qualifications of the parties;… whether the applicant is educated and professionally qualified and what was the work profile of the applicant; whether the applicant was stay-at-home mother, or has been working and can get a job;… whether the applicant is capable of working and earning a salary.\u201d<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n The judgment also stated:<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cIf a person is well-qualified and was working, the Court can certainly take note of her capacity to earn. A lady who is highly qualified… should not be allowed to sit at home and seek maintenance.\u201d<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n While discussing misuse of maintenance law, the Court made strong remarks and observed that the beneficial provisions of law cannot become a tool for \u201cprofessional parasitism<\/em><\/strong>.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n The High Court found that the lower court failed to examine the wife\u2019s actual earning potential and passed the order in haste without giving the husband proper opportunity to place his financial details on record.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Accordingly, the Court set aside the \u20b912,000 maintenance granted to the wife and sent the matter back for fresh consideration after proper financial disclosure by both sides.<\/p>\n\n\n\n However, the Court upheld the \u20b98,000 monthly maintenance for the minor daughter, stating that a child\u2019s right to maintenance is independent and cannot suffer because of disputes between parents.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Court directed both parties to file their Affidavits of Assets and Liabilities<\/strong> and asked the Magistrate to reconsider the matter expeditiously.<\/p>\n\n\n\n <\/p>\n\n\n\n <\/p>\n\n\n\n\n
\n
\n
Explanatory Table Of All Laws & Sections Referred In The Case<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
LAW \/ SECTION<\/strong><\/td> EXPLANATION<\/strong><\/td> RELEVANCE IN THIS CASE<\/strong><\/td><\/tr><\/thead> Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act<\/a>, 2005<\/strong><\/td> Law providing protection and remedies to women alleging domestic violence.<\/td> Wife filed DV proceedings seeking maintenance and other reliefs.<\/td><\/tr> Section 23, DV Act<\/strong><\/td> Gives Magistrate power to pass interim and ex-parte orders.<\/td> Magistrate granted ad-interim maintenance under this section.<\/td><\/tr> Section 29, DV Act<\/strong><\/td> Provides appeal remedy against Magistrate\u2019s order.<\/td> Wife argued husband should file appeal instead of revision.<\/td><\/tr> Section 482 CrPC<\/strong><\/td> Inherent powers of High Court to prevent abuse of process and secure justice.<\/td> Husband invoked this section challenging procedural illegality.<\/td><\/tr> Section 125 CrPC<\/strong><\/td> Maintenance provision for wife, children and parents unable to maintain themselves.<\/td> Separate maintenance case already filed by wife.<\/td><\/tr> Sections 498A<\/a>\/406\/506\/341\/34 IPC<\/strong><\/td> Cruelty, criminal breach of trust, criminal intimidation, wrongful restraint and common intention.<\/td> Criminal case filed by wife against husband and family.<\/td><\/tr> Sections 3\/4 Dowry Prohibition Act<\/a><\/strong><\/td> Punishment relating to dowry demand and dowry offences.<\/td> Dowry allegations were also made by wife.<\/td><\/tr> Special Marriage Act<\/a>, 1954<\/strong><\/td> Governs civil marriages between parties.<\/td> Marriage between parties took place under this Act in 2014.<\/td><\/tr> Article 141 of Constitution of India<\/a><\/strong><\/td> Supreme Court judgments are binding on all courts.<\/td> High Court said Rajnesh v. Neha guidelines are mandatory.<\/td><\/tr> Rajnesh v. Neha (2021) 2 SCC 324<\/strong><\/td> Landmark Supreme Court judgment mandating financial disclosure affidavits in maintenance cases.<\/td> Core basis for setting aside wife\u2019s maintenance order.<\/td><\/tr> Prabhu Chawla v. State of Rajasthan<\/strong><\/td> Clarified that High Court can use Section 482 powers despite alternative remedies.<\/td> Used to hold revision maintainable.<\/td><\/tr> S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu v. Jagannath<\/strong><\/td> Landmark case on suppression of material facts and fraud on court.<\/td> Applied regarding alleged concealment of wife\u2019s income\/professional status.<\/td><\/tr> Shailja v. Khobbanna<\/strong><\/td> Supreme Court distinguished \u201ccapable of earning\u201d and \u201cactually earning\u201d.<\/td> Discussed while examining wife\u2019s earning capacity.<\/td><\/tr> Mamta Mamgain v. Pawan Kumar<\/strong><\/td> Delhi HC held highly qualified spouse cannot sit idle and burden other spouse.<\/td> Relied upon by Court regarding earning potential.<\/td><\/tr> Rupali Gupta v. Rajat Gupta<\/strong><\/td> Court held qualified spouse should not remain dependent despite earning capacity.<\/td> Used to support scrutiny of wife\u2019s maintenance claim.<\/td><\/tr> Kalyan Dey Chowdhury v. Rita Dey Chowdhury<\/strong><\/td> Supreme Court discussed benchmark maintenance from husband\u2019s net salary.<\/td> Considered while examining maintenance calculation.<\/td><\/tr> Jagdish Jugtawat v. Manjulata<\/strong><\/td> Child\u2019s right to maintenance is independent and protected.<\/td> Basis for continuing child maintenance.<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n Case Details<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
PARTICULARS<\/strong><\/td> DETAILS<\/strong><\/td><\/tr><\/thead> Case Title<\/strong><\/td> Jyotirmoy Biswas vs State of West Bengal & Anr.<\/em><\/td><\/tr> Case Number<\/strong><\/td> CRR 3578 OF 2022<\/td><\/tr> Court<\/strong><\/td> Calcutta High Court<\/td><\/tr> Bench<\/strong><\/td> Justice Uday Kumar<\/td><\/tr> Judgment Date<\/strong><\/td> 05.05.2026<\/td><\/tr> Hearing Concluded On<\/strong><\/td> 01.04.2026<\/td><\/tr> Petitioner Counsel<\/strong><\/td> Mr. Pritam Choudhury<\/td><\/tr> Opposite Parties Counsel<\/strong><\/td> Mr. Shibaji Kumar Das and Mr. Dipendu Sarkar<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n Key Takeaways<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
\n