Perceived Requirement Based On Status Of Spouses And Not Actual Daily Requirements Considered For Monthly Alimony: Calcutta HC
The Calcutta High Court was dealing with an application filed by a Husband in the Appeal to Wife claiming alimony to the tune of ₹1 lakh per month.

The Calcutta High Court has held that while deciding the amount for monthly alimony, the perceived requirement based on the status of both spouses and not actual daily requirements are taken into consideration.
The Court was dealing with an application filed by the Wife in the appeal filed by the Husband, claiming alimony to the tune of ₹1 lakh per month.
The division bench of Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharya and Justice Uday Kumar held, "The question is not what are the actual daily requirements of the wife but as to what is the perceived requirement of the wife, taking into account not only her daily bread but her other necessities commensurate with the status of both spouses....Even if the status of the husband and his professional qualification is taken into consideration, monthly alimony of Rs.1 lakh is a meagre nothing."
The Husband was represented by Senior Advocate Ashok Banerjee while the Respondent was represented by Senior Advocate Billwadal Bhattacharyya.
Facts of the Case
Counsel for the Wife submitted that the annual net income shown by the husband is ₹1,40,08,824/- and the total monthly income as shown in the affidavit is ₹11,85,730/-. He thus contended that the monthly income now pleaded by the husband, which is to the tune Rs. 3 lakh per month with variable monthly bonus of Rs.2,73,000/-, is a gross suppression of the actual income of the husband. He further contended that the twin sons of the couple has attained majority and thus cannot be termed as dependants of the husband anymore. The Counsel argued that the propositions laid down by the Supreme Court in Rajnesh vs. Neha and another (2021) had not been adhered to in the present case in as much as the appellant/husband, in his affidavit-of-asset, has failed to disclose his income tax returns for the relevant period. Moreover, bank statements have been disclosed only for three months instead of the three years as required under the said judgment of the Supreme Court.
He further argued that the Wife has substantiated her requirements from the averments made in her application and her other pleadings and, having no independent income of her own, is entitled to alimony of at least Rs.1 lakh per month as claimed.
The Counsel for the Husband argued that if the average withdrawal per month of the wife is Rs.10,909/- for a period of eleven months between January and November, 2024, it is not understandable as to how and for what expenses she requires the huge amount of alimony to the tune of Rs.1 lakh per month.
Reasoning By Court
The Court noted that the monthly income as disclosed by the husband himself is ₹1,40,08,824/- and there is no modification to the same. It was perplexed as to how, with the lapse of time, the monthly income of the husband got reduced from Rs.11,85,730 to Rs.3 lakh along with monthly bonus of Rs.2,73,000/- per month. The Court also pointed out the failure of the husband to disclose the monthly bonus earned at least over the last few years for the court to come to a conclusion as to the average monthly bonus actually earned by him.
It was of the view that the remuneration of a professional of the stature and qualification of the husband, in the present case, a Cost and Management Accountant, cannot decrease with time unless there is some specific and categorically disclosed reason for the same and no such explanation has been given by him.
"Thus, the plea now taken by the husband to the effect that his monthly salary is only Rs.3 lakh plus monthly bonus Rs.2,73,000/-, as opposed to Rs.11,85,730/-, as disclosed in his affidavit in the trial court, is not credible and is hereby disbelieved," the Court observed.
Insofar as the alimony was concerned, that Court stated that it is a settled rule of thumb that the monthly alimony granted to the wife is between one-fifth and one-third of the net income of the husband and in the present case the amount claimed by the wife is even less than one-fifth of such salary.
The Court observed that taking into consideration the perceived requirement based on status of both spouses, the ₹1 lakh alimony claimed is a meagre nothing.
"Moreover, there is no logic behind the argument that since the wife at present draws an amount of Rs.10,909/- per month, at least between January and November, 2024, her requirements are restricted to such amount..... In view of meagre financial means, a person may very well be constrained to limited drawings from her limited resources.... However, that does not necessarily mean that her necessities, in particular commensurate with her husband, are required to be restricted to that amount," the Court observed.
Case No.- F.A.T 178 of 2024, IA No: CAN 2 of 2024
Appearances:
Appellant- Senior Advocate Ashok Banerjee, Advocate Subhabrata Dutta, Advocate Manoj Ghosh, Advocate Aranya Saha, Advocate Monami Mukherjee
Respondent- Senior Advocate Billwadal Bhattacharyya, Advocate Anish Kumar Mukherjee, Advocate Tamaghna Pramanick
Click here to read/ download Order