The Calcutta High Court set aside ad-interim maintenance of ₹12,000 per month granted to a wife under the Domestic Violence Act, holding that the Magistrate failed to examine financial disclosure and earning capacity in terms of Rajnesh v. Neha.
Calcutta High Court Sets Aside Maintenance Granted To Wife
The Calcutta High Court has held that courts cannot ignore a spouse’s earning capacity while deciding ad-interim maintenance.
Justice Uday Kumar made the observation while hearing a criminal revisional application filed by a husband. He challenged an ex-parte ad-interim maintenance order passed under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.
The trial court had directed the husband to pay ₹12,000 per month to his wife and ₹8,000 per month for the maintenance of their minor daughter.
Wife’s Earning Capacity Relevant To Maintenance
The husband argued before the High Court that his wife is a qualified medical professional specialising in critical care. He claimed that she had suppressed her income while seeking maintenance.
The High Court did not make any final finding on her entitlement to maintenance. However, it held that a spouse’s earning capacity remains a relevant factor even at the initial stage of deciding ad-interim maintenance.
The Court observed that beneficial legislation should not ignore material facts related to the claimant’s financial independence.
It further stated that maintenance laws aim to prevent destitution and not create unjust enrichment by overlooking a party’s actual earning potential.
Rajnesh v. Neha Disclosure Rules Must Be Followed
The High Court noted that the Magistrate granted ad-interim maintenance on the same day the Domestic Incident Report was filed.
The Magistrate also failed to direct the parties to submit Affidavits of Assets and Liabilities.
Referring to the Supreme Court’s ruling in Rajnesh v. Neha, the Court reiterated that the financial disclosure framework laid down in the judgment is binding in all maintenance proceedings.
The Court described the disclosure requirement as a “mandatory procedural architecture.” It held that any order passed without following the requirement suffers from serious procedural defects.
Financial Transparency Important In Such Cases
The Court further held that financial disclosure becomes even more important when the claimant is professionally qualified and capable of earning independently.
According to the Court, financial transparency is necessary for a fair decision on maintenance claims.
The Court found that the Magistrate adopted a “procedural leap” by granting maintenance without giving the husband an opportunity to respond or place his financial details on record.
Matter Sent Back For Fresh Consideration
The High Court set aside the portion of the order directing the husband to pay ₹12,000 per month to the wife.
It remanded the matter for fresh consideration after compliance with the affidavit disclosure requirements.
The Court directed both parties to file their Affidavits of Assets and Liabilities in terms of Rajnesh v. Neha. It also instructed the Magistrate to reconsider the issue of ad-interim maintenance expeditiously.
Child’s Maintenance Left Undisturbed
The High Court did not interfere with the ₹8,000 monthly maintenance awarded to the minor daughter.
The Court stressed that a child’s right to maintenance stands on an independent footing and should not suffer because of disputes between parents.
It also directed the husband to clear the child’s maintenance arrears in instalments.
The Court clarified that any amount already paid to the wife would remain subject to final adjudication.
Background Of The Dispute
The dispute arose from matrimonial issues between the parties, who married in 2014 and have a minor daughter.
After their separation in 2021, the wife initiated proceedings under the Domestic Violence Act along with other legal actions.
The husband challenged the ad-interim maintenance order by arguing that the Magistrate ignored the wife’s professional status as a doctor.
He also contended that the order violated the principles of natural justice.
Partly accepting the husband’s arguments, the High Court reaffirmed that courts must consider financial disclosure and earning capacity even at the ad-interim stage of maintenance proceedings.
