15.07.2026 Court No.2 Item No.25-26 sudipta IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CIVIL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE CO 2245 of 2024 Subhra Dey Vs. Subhas Dey With CO 2349 of 2024 Subhas Dey Vs. Subhra Dey Mr. Somnath Roy Chowdhury Ms. Arpita Chowdhury Mr. Anik Das …for the petitioner in CO 2245 of 2024 and for the opposite party in CO 2349 of 2024 Mr. Sanjib Seth …for the petitioner in CO 2349 of 2024 and for the opposite party in CO 2245 of 2024 1. Present petition has been filed challenging the order no. 78 dated 26th April, 2024 in Misc. Case no. 116 of 2018 whereby the learned Additional District Judge, 1st Court, Howrah after detailed discussion, inter alia, granting pendente lite maintenance at the sum of Rs.7000/- to the wife from the date of the application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. Learned Trial Judge also awarded a sum of Rs.4000/- per month to the daughter from the date of filing of the application till the daughter, namely, Ms. Shreya Dey, attains the majority. 2 2. The husband and wife both have challenged the impugned order. The wife, Ms. Subhra Dey, has challenged the interim order predominantly on the ground that the maintenance pendente lite granted to her is insufficient and does not commensurate with the income of the husband. The second challenge is that the maintenance granted to the daughter besides being insufficient is also liable to be modified to the extent that it is paid till the marriage of the daughter. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner i.e., husband in CO 2349 of 2024 has assailed the impugned order predominantly on the ground that the wife had left the matrimonial home at her own and since she has failed to discharge the matrimonial obligations, the husband cannot be compelled to pay the maintenance. Learned counsel for the wife submits that in the proceeding under 125 Cr.P.C., the maintenance which was initially granted to the wife was overturned by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in CRR 2911 of 2018. Learned counsel submits that it was, inter alia, held by the Co- ordinate Bench of this Court that the wife had left the matrimonial home at her own and there was no material to infer that there was any cruelty inflicted upon the wife. Learned counsel also submits that wife i.e., petitioner in CO 2245 of 2024 is actively helping her father in the business. Learned counsel further submits that as per Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 3 at the maximum a daughter can be paid maintenance only till she attains the age of majority. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the wife i.e., the petitioner in CO 2245 of 2024 has submitted that the scope of jurisdiction under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 are entirely different. Learned counsel submits that one of the conditions for grant of maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. is that the person claiming maintenance must have been neglected or refused to be maintained by the other spouse. Learned counsel submits that there is no such condition required under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. 5. Learned counsel has further submitted that a daughter is entitled to maintenance until her marriage, if the mother is not earning as is being provided in Section 26 of Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956. Learned counsel further submits that the husband in his affidavit filed before the Court has admitted his gross income to be Rs.75,416/- and net income is to be Rs.54,382/-. Learned counsel, therefore, submits that award of maintenance at a sum of Rs.7000/- to the wife and Rs.4000/- to the daughter is totally insufficient and is on the verge of meager maintenance being awarded by the learned Trial Court. 4 Learned counsel, therefore, submits that the impugned order is liable to be modified to the extent that the maintenance to the extent of 1/5th to each of the member of the family should be determined and secondly, the maintenance to the daughter should be till the date of marriage. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record carefully. Before proceeding further it is necessary to reproduce Section 125 (1) Cr.P.C. which read as under. “125. Order for maintenance of wives, children and parents. (1)If any person having sufficient means neglects or refuses to maintain – (a)his wife, unable to maintain herself, or (b)his legitimate or illegitimate minor child, whether married or not, unable to maintain itself, or (c)his legitimate or illegitimate child (not being a married daughter) who has attained majority, where such child is, by reason of any physical or mental abnormality or injury unable to maintain itself, or (d)his father or mother, unable to maintain himself or herself, a Magistrate of the first class may, upon proof of such neglect or refusal, order such person to make a monthly allowance for the maintenance of his wife or such child, father or mother, at such monthly rate, as such Magistrate thinks fit, and to pay the same to such person as the Magistrate may from time to time direct : Provided that the Magistrate may order the father of a minor female child referred to in clause (b) to make such allowance, until she attains her majority, if the Magistrate is satisfied that the husband of such minor female child, if married, is not possessed of sufficient means: [Provided further that the Magistrate may, during the pendency of the proceeding regarding monthly allowance for the maintenance under this sub-section, order such person to make a 5 monthly allowance for the interim maintenance of his wife or such child, father or mother, and the expenses of such proceeding which the Magistrate considers reasonable, and to pay the same to such person as the Magistrate may from time to time direct: Provided also that an application for the monthly allowance for the interim maintenance and expenses for proceeding under the second proviso shall, as far as possible, be disposed of within sixty days from the date of the service of notice of the application to such person.] Explanation. - For the purposes of this Chapter, (a)"minor" means a person who, under the provisions of the Indian Majority Act, 1875 (9 of 1875) is deemed not to have attained his majority, (b)"wife" includes a woman who has been divorced by, or has obtained a divorce from, her husband and has not re-married………….” 7. It is also advantageous to refer to Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 which reads as under: “24. Maintenance pendente lite and expenses of proceedings.- Where in any proceeding under this Act it appears to the court that either the wife or the husband, as the case may be, has no independent income sufficient for her or his support and the necessary expenses of the proceeding, it may, on the application of the wife or the husband, order the respondent to pay to the petitioner the expenses of the proceeding, and monthly during the proceeding such sum as, having regard to the petitioners own income and the income of the respondent, it may seem to the court to be reasonable. [Provided that the application for the payment of the expenses of the proceeding and such monthly sum during the proceeding, shall, as far as possible, be disposed of within sixty days from the date of service of notice on the wife or the husband, as the case may be.]” 8. The bare perusal of Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. and Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 makes it clear that the scopes of jurisdiction in both the statute 6 are entirely different. The maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. can be granted to the wife if she has been neglected to refused to be maintained by her husband. It is a settled proposition that if the wife has left the matrimonial home at her own, she cannot be awarded maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. 9. However, bare perusal of Section 24 makes it clear that legislature in its own wisdom has conferred discretion upon the Court to grant maintenance pendente lite, if either of the spouse has invoked the jurisdiction of the Court and has no independent income sufficient for her / his support. The maintenance under Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 has to be granted after taking into consideration the income of the parties. The Court is required to take into account the need of the spouse approaching the Court and the paying capacity of the non-applicant. Before proceeding further, it is also advantageous to refer to Section 20 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956. Section 20 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act reads as under. “20. Maintenance of children and aged parents.―(1)Subject to the provisions of this section a Hindu is bound, during his or her life-time, to maintain his or her legitimate or illegitimate children and his or her aged or infirm parents. (2) A legitimate or illegitimate child may claim maintenance from his or her father or mother so long as the child is a minor. 7 (3) The obligation of a person to maintain his or her aged or infirm parent or a daughter who is unmarried extends in so far as the parent or the unmarried daughter, as the case may be, is unable to maintain himself or herself out of his or her own earnings or other property. Explanation.―In this section “parent “includes a childless step-mother.” 10. Thus, under Section 20(3) of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 the maintenance can be granted to the daughter till her marriage. 11. Before proceeding further, it is also necessary to be kept in mind that all the legislations i.e. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 and Section 125 Cr.P.C. are social welfare legislation and have been enacted with a view to grant expedient relief to the person who has been wronged in the matrimonial home. The interpretation of such provision has to be made inconsonance with the intention of the legislature. 12. The law regarding the grant of the maintenance has quite been settled. It has repeatedly been held that the Court while granting the maintenance has to strike a balance. The maintenance so granted should not become oppressive and unbearable for the husband and at the same time, it should not drive the wife to penury. In Rajnesh Vs. Neha & Anr reported in (2021) 2 SCC 324. it was, inter alia, held as under. 8 “III.Criteria for determining quantum of maintenance 77. The objective of granting interim/permanent alimony is to ensure that the dependent spouse is not reduced to destitution or vagrancy on account of the failure of the marriage, and not as a punishment to the other spouse. There is no straitjacket formula for fixing the quantum of maintenance to be awarded. 78. The factors which would weigh with the court inter alia are the status of the parties; reasonable needs of the wife and dependent children; whether the applicant is educated and professionally qualified; whether the applicant has any independent source of income; whether the income is sufficient to enable her to maintain the same standard of living as she was accustomed to in her matrimonial home; whether the applicant was employed prior to her marriage; whether she was working during the subsistence of the marriage; whether the wife was required to sacrifice her employment opportunities for nurturing the family, child rearing, and looking after adult members of the family; reasonable costs of litigation for a non- working wife. [ Refer to Jasbir Kaur Sehgal v. District Judge, Dehradun, (1997) 7 SCC 7; Refer to Vinny Parmvir Parmar v. Parmvir Parmar, (2011) 13 SCC 112 : (2012) 3 SCC (Civ) 290] 79. In Manish Jain v. Akanksha Jain [Manish Jain v. Akanksha Jain, (2017) 15 SCC 801 : (2018) 2 SCC (Civ) 712] this Court held that the financial position of the parents of the applicant wife, would not be material while determining the quantum of maintenance. An order of interim maintenance is conditional on the circumstance that the wife or husband who makes a claim has no independent income, sufficient for her or his support. It is no answer to a claim of maintenance that the wife is educated and could support herself. The court must take into 9 consideration the status of the parties and the capacity of the spouse to pay for her or his support. Maintenance is dependent upon factual situations; the court should mould the claim for maintenance based on various factors brought before it. 80. On the other hand, the financial capacity of the husband, his actual income, reasonable expenses for his own maintenance, and dependent family members whom he is obliged to maintain under the law, liabilities if any, would be required to be taken into consideration, to arrive at the appropriate quantum of maintenance to be paid. The court must have due regard to the standard of living of the husband, as well as the spiralling inflation rates and high costs of living. The plea of the husband that he does not possess any source of income ipso facto does not absolve him of his moral duty to maintain his wife if he is able-bodied and has educational qualifications. [Reema Salkan v. Sumer Singh Salkan, (2019) 12 SCC 303 : (2018) 5 SCC (Civ) 596 : (2019) 4 SCC (Cri) 339] 81. A careful and just balance must be drawn between all relevant factors. The test for determination of maintenance in matrimonial disputes depends on the financial status of the respondent, and the standard of living that the applicant was accustomed to in her matrimonial home. [Chaturbhuj v. Sita Bai, (2008) 2 SCC 316 : (2008) 1 SCC (Civ) 547 : (2008) 1 SCC (Cri) 356] The maintenance amount awarded must be reasonable and realistic, and avoid either of the two extremes i.e. maintenance awarded to the wife should neither be so extravagant which becomes oppressive and unbearable for the respondent, nor should it be so meagre that it drives the wife to penury. The sufficiency of the quantum has to be adjudged so that the wife is able to maintain herself with reasonable comfort.” 10 13. While determining the quantum of the maintenance to the child, it was also, inter alia, held in Rajnesh Vs. Neha (supra) as under: “91. The living expenses of the child would include expenses for food, clothing, residence, medical expenses, education of children. Extra coaching classes or any other vocational training courses to complement the basic education must be factored in, while awarding child support. Albeit, it should be a reasonable amount to be awarded for extracurricular/coaching classes, and not an overly extravagant amount which may be claimed. 92. Education expenses of the children must be normally borne by the father. If the wife is working and earning sufficiently, the expenses may be shared proportionately between the parties.” 14. The quantum of maintenance has also come up for discussion before this Court in Smt. Soma Chowdhury (Sarkar) Vs. Pradip Kumar Chowdhury reported in 2008 Supreme (Cal) 621 wherein it was, inter alia, held that the amount of alimony pendente lite should vary between 1/3rd and 1/5th of the income of the earning spouse depending upon facts and circumstances of the case. 15. In respect to the scope of jurisdiction under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and Section 125 Cr.P.C. as has been discussed hereinabove is also entirely different. In Debnarayan Haider Vs. Anushree 11 Haider reported in 2005 Supreme (Cal) 365, in the identical case under Section 125 Cr.P.C. the Court of learned Magistrate did not grant any maintenance. This order was set aside by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in CRR 973 of 2001. However, the Hon’ble Supreme Court set aside the judgment of this Court and restored the order of the Magistrate, inter alia, holding that there was no just ground for the wife, respondent for refusing to stay with her husband in the matrimonial home. However, the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court drew a distinction between the area of jurisdiction under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act and Section 125 Cr.P.C. and, inter alia, held as under. “(9) IT is apparent on the language of the aforesaid provisions that a wife being unable to maintain herself would be entitled to a monthly allowance for maintenance of herself upon proof of such neglect or refusal by the husband having Sufficient means to do so provided the wife is not living in adultery or has not refused to live with her husband without any sufficient reason and also they are not living separately by mutual consent. In view of the aforesaid criteria laid down in the provisions of Section 125 of the code of Criminal Procedure, the Supreme court took pain to go into the details as to whether the wife- respondent had any sufficient reason for refusing to live with the husband-appellant. In the context and particularly in view of sub-section (5) of Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the Supreme Court made a thorough scrutiny of the evidence of the parties and came to the conclusion that the wife-respondent did not have any sufficient reason for refusing to live with the husband-appellant. Upon such conclusion the Supreme Court affirmed the order of the learned Magistrate passed as above and set aside the order of this Court by which the maintenance allowance was allowed in favour of the wife- respondent in addition to the maintenance allowance granted in favour of the minor child by the learned Magistrate. Therefore the said order of the Supreme Court cannot have any impact 12 whatsoever on the provisions of Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage act, 1955 which read as under maintenance pendente lite and expenses of proceedings - Where in any proceeding under this Act it appears to the Court that either the wife or the husband, as the case may be, has no independent income sufficient for her or his support and the necessary expenses of the proceeding, it may, on the application of the wife or the husband, order the respondent to pay to the petitioner the expenses of the proceeding, and monthly during the proceeding such sum as, having regard to the petitioner's own income and the income of the respondent, it may seem to the Court to be reasonable. (10) UPON bare perusal of the above section it appears that the same provides for support to be given by the earning spouse in favour of non- earning spouse during the pendency of the matrimonial proceeding before the Court without making any condition precedent or laying down any stipulation for receiving such alimony pendente lite by the non-earning spouse from the earning spouse. It is rather clear, upon reading of the said Section, that if it appears to the court that either the wife or the husband, as the case may be, has no independent income sufficient for her or his support and the necessary expenses of the proceeding, then on the application of the wife or the husband, as the case may be, the Court would order the respondent to pay to the petitioner a monthly alimony pendente lite and the expenses of the proceeding pending disposal of the same as may seem to the court to be reasonable, of course, regard being had to the income of the petitioner, if there be any, and the income of the respondent. No stipulation has been provided for in the said Section that either the wife or the husband, as the case may be, for being entitled to the alimony pendente lite and expenses of the proceeding will have to prove that he or she has the just ground and/or the sufficient reason for living separately from the other or that he or she cannot claim alimony pendente lite if he or she has no reason whatsoever to leave the matrimonial home.” 16. Thus, before granting of maintenance pendente lite under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 the Court cannot put any condition precedent, whereas no such condition has been laid down in the Act. In 13 respect of the right of unmarried daughter to have the maintenance till the marriage has been has been affirmed by this Court in Manisha Kedia Vs. Manoj Kumar Kedia reported in 2024 Supreme (Cal) 177, it was, inter alia, held as under. “22.The issue that fell for consideration in Abhilasha (supra) was whether a major unmarried daughter not suffering from any physical or mental abnormality injury is entitled to claim maintenance from her father in a proceeding under Section 125 Criminal Procedure Code. The said issue is not germane in the case on hand and, therefore, the said decision is not applicable to the instant case. 23. the decision in the case of Jasbir Kaur Sehgal (supra) squarely applies to the facts of the case on hand. By applying the ratio of the said reported decision, to the case on hand, this Court holds that the adult daughter is entitled to maintenance from her father under Section 24 of H.M. Act.” 17. Similarly, in Pranab Mukherjee Vs. Pampa Mukherjee reported in 1993 Supreme (Cal) 475, it was, inter alia, held as under. “12.Accordingly, in order to avoid multiplicity of proceeding and considering the fact that this is a social legislation and the elder daughter has no income of her own and it is a matter of common knowledge that one has to spend some money to file a separate proceeding in a Court of law, we cannot compel the elder daughter to file a proper suit or proper proceeding. When the two daughters are living with their mother, can the court deny in the facts and circumstances of the case, merely on the technical pleas that the court has no power to grant such maintenance? When the court has got power under a different Act and when the statutory obligation is upon the father to maintain the daughter under the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, we are of the view that the court has power in order to do social and economic justice to an unmarried daughter who has just attained the majority to raise her claim through her mother for 14 maintenance as she is independently entitled to such maintenance from her father even though under the provision of different Act namely Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956. It would be contrary to the principles of justice and fair play and against the social order to compel a daughter to file a suit for maintenance under the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 when she is residing with her mother. Father cannot escape from his legal and moral obligation to maintain her, unmarried daughter. A dispute and difference may go on between the husband and wife. But unfortunate victims of such fight between the couple are the sons and daughters of such unfortunate parents, when obligation to maintain daughter is there under different Act. In order to avoid multiplicity of proceeding and for doing social and economic justice to the said daughter we are of the view that she also is entitled to be maintained by the father. There is no dispute and difference between the daughter and the father and a daughter cannot be penalised for faults if any of her parents, and for living with the mother.” 18. The Apex Court also in Smt. Jasbir Kaur Sehgal Vs. District Judge Dehradun & Ors. reported in 1997 (7) Supreme 642, it was held as under. “6.Wife says that the husband has not given true account of his assets and income and has rather suppressed the same. Though the wife has not been able to give any specific evidence to support her contention but circumstances show that the husband has not given true state of affairs of his income. He has pleaded that both his wife and his eldest daughter are earning Rs. 10,000/- per month but there is no basis for such an allegation. The fact remains that the wife has no source of income and she is also maintaining her eldest unmarried daughter. Under the Hindu Adoptions & Maintenance Act, 1956 it is the obligation of a person to maintain his unmarried daughter if she is unable to maintain herself. In this case since the wife has no income of her own, it is the obligation of the husband to maintain her and her two unmarried daughters one of whom is living with wife and one with him. Section 24 of the Act no doubt talks of maintenance of wife during the pendency of the proceedings but this section, in our view, cannot be read in isolation and cannot be given restricted meaning to hold that it is the maintenance of the wife alone and no one else. Since wife is maintaining the eldest unmarried daughter, her right to Claim maintenance would 15 include her own maintenance and that of her daughter. This fact has to be kept in view while fixing the maintenance pendente lite for the wife. We are aware of the provisions of Section 26 of the Act providing for custody of minor children, their maintenance and education but that section operates in its own field.” 19. Learned counsel for the petitioner / husband in CO 2349 of 2024 has submitted that the judgments cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner / wife in CO 2245 of 2024 are not applicable in the present case. Learned counsel has relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in Lata Biswas Vs. Shanti Ranjan Biswas reported in 2016 (4) CHN (CAL) 569. Learned counsel submits that in this case, the maintenance pendente lite was declined, inter alia, on the ground that the wife had left matrimonial home at her own, even deserting her own son and a daughter in the custody of her husband. 20. The Court upon consideration of the judgment in Late Biswas (supra) being cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner / wife respectfully distinguishes the same as in Lata Biswas (supra) the allegations against the wife were of adultery and even a husband has lodged a case under Section 376 against the wife as well as against the other persons. 21. It is also relevant to mention that the husband in his affidavit has disclosed income to be Rs.75,000/- and expenses to the tune of Rs.49,000/- to Rs.50,000/-. The wife in her affidavit has specifically stated that she 16 is a house wife and does not have any income of her. The daughter is stated to be studying at Victoria Institution, Acharya Prafulla Chandra Road, Kolkata, and her expenses have been stated to be around Rs.18000/- per month which includes the college fee / books and stationary / private tuitions in the year 2023. The Court, therefore, on the consideration of the entire facts and material on record and the submissions made by the parties, considers that the plea of the husband / petitioner in CO 2349 of 2024, that the wife is not entitled to any maintenance on account of the fact that the maintenance was denied under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C., has to be rejected. The scope of jurisdiction under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act and Section 125 Cr.P.C. are totally different. These provisions as being stated above are part of social welfare legislation and has to be interpreted in a manner which suits the intention of the legislature. Similarly, this Court is of the firm view that in view of the Section 26 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, daughter is entitled to maintenance till her marriage. The maintenance cannot be stopped at the age of attaining majority as it is a matter of common knowledge, that if the daughter is residing with the mother, she has to undertake entire expenses. Thus, the maintenance has to be granted to the daughter till her marriage. 17 22. Now coming to the point of maintenance aintenance pendente lite to be granted to the wife and daughter. The Court considers that formula of unit method is the most approximate method for grant of maintenance. The gross income of the husband is stated to be Rs.75,000/- and deduction is a sum of Rs.21,000/-. Though, there is no detail of deductions but still accepting it to be true, the net income of the husband has to be divided into five units. The two units shall go to the husband, one unit for the mother of the husband and one unit each for wife and the daughter. Thus, if the net income of Rs.54382/- is divided by five units, it roughly comes out to be Rs.10875/-. If it is round figured to Rs.10,000/- per month, the Court considers the maintenance pendente lite in the sum of Rs.10,000/- to the wife from the date of filing of the application shall be just and sufficient. In addition to that a sum of Rs.10,000/- is to be awarded to the daughter from the date of maintenance till her marriage would be just and sufficient. Thus, the impugned order is modified to the extent that a sum of Rs.10,000/- to be awarded to the wife from the date of application maintenance pendente lite and Rs.10000/- to the daughter till the date of marriage. The husband shall pay the maintenance by the 15th of month each succeeding month, anything falls due , the arrear up to 18 June, 2026 shall be paid in 12th equally monthly instalments till June, 2027. 23. With the above observations, these petitions stand disposed of. 24. All parties shall act on the basis of the server copy of this order duly downloaded from the official website of this Court. (Dinesh Kumar Sharma, J.)