The Calcutta High Court set aside the Order passed by the Family Court by which it granted interim maintenance to a wife.

The Court was dealing with a Revisional Application filed by the husband being aggrieved by the aforesaid Family Court’s Order directing him to pay Rs. 80,000/- per month to his wife.

A Single Bench of Justice Suvra Ghosh observed “Keeping in view the handsome amount of Rs. 32 lakhs that has been paid by the petitioner to the opposite party who also has some income of her own to sustain herself till the application is finally disposed of, there is remote chance of her being exposed to vagrancy and destitution. Grant of interim maintenance in her favour pending disposal of the application is not required. Also, no reason has been assigned by the learned Family Court with regard to imposition of cost of Rs. 25,000/- besides grant of interim maintenance to the opposite party.”

Senior Advocate Ayan Bhattacharjee represented the Petitioner while Advocate Suresh Kr. Sahani represented the Opposite Party.

Brief Facts

The Petitioner-husband challenged the Order of the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court which allowed the prayer of the Opposite Party-wife, seeking interim maintenance. The Family Court directed the husband to pay interim maintenance of Rs. 80,000/- per month and also imposed a cost of Rs. 25,000/- against the husband. The counsel for the Petitioner referred to Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) demonstrating that a wife unable to maintain herself shall be entitled to maintenance from her husband who despite having sufficient means, neglects or refuses to maintain her.

It was submitted that a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU)/settlement was entered into by and between the parties in 2022 wherein the husband undertook to pay Rs. 32 lakhs to the wife and pay further amount of Rs. 32 lakhs after he was exonerated from the criminal case filed against him or the criminal case was closed. It was contended that, however, the wife refused to withdraw the criminal case pending against the husband and the MoU was abandoned. Hence, the husband was before the High Court.

Reasoning

The High Court in the above regard, noted, “Since the criminal case is still pending, the occasion for the petitioner to pay the further sum of Rs. 32 lakhs did not arise. The opposite party has admitted receipt of Rs. 32 lakhs from the petitioner in terms of the memorandum which did not ultimately fructify.”

The Court further referred to the Supreme Court’s Judgment which said that it is quite common that the Applications made under Section 125 of CrPC take several months for being disposed of finally and in order to enjoy the fruits of the proceedings under Section 125, the Applicant should be alive till the date of the final Order and that the Applicant can do in a large number of cases only if an Order for payment of interim maintenance is passed by the Court.

“Such interim orders can be granted on the basis of affidavits to be filed by the parties pending final disposal of the application”, it added.

The Court was of the opinion that in dealing with the prayer for interim maintenance, the Family Court took into consideration the entire contention of the wife as made out in the Application under Section 125 CrPC instead of restricting itself to the consideration as to whether there was any requirement for interim maintenance in favour of the husband for the purpose of sustaining herself during pendency of the Application.

“In the said backdrop, this Court is of the view that the order impugned lacks appreciation of the evidence on record in its proper perspective and is liable to be set aside/quashed”, it concluded.

Accordingly, the High Court allowed the Revisional Application, quashed the Family Court’s Order, and directed the Family Court to take the proceeding to its logical conclusion as expeditiously as possible.

Cause Title: ABC v. XYZ

Appearance:

Petitioner: Senior Advocate Ayan Bhattacharjee, Advocates Sayan De, Sayan Kanjilal, and Rimik Chakraborty.

Opposite Party: Advocate Suresh Kr. Sahani

Click here to read/download the Judgment