Divorce doesn’t end maintenance: Calcutta High Court upholds wife’s monthly claim
The high court held that divorce does not end a wife’s maintenance claim, noting that “wife” includes a woman divorced by her husband who has not remarried. (Image generated using AI)
The end of a marriage does not necessarily end a husband’s duty to support his former wife, the Calcutta High Court has held, upholding her Rs 1,500 monthly maintenance but scrapping the Rs 2,000 awarded to their daughter from the Rs 3,500 monthly amount fixed in 2019. The court also stayed recovery of arrears, directing the husband to deposit 50 per cent of the genuine arrears due to the wife within four weeks.
Justice Uday Kumar was hearing a plea by the man challenging the woman’s maintenance proceedings and the subsequent execution proceedings. The husband had argued that an ex parte divorce decree granted in 2022 had brought the maintenance proceedings to an end.
“The legislative intent is unmistakable: the dissolution of a marriage, even though a decree secured by the husband, does not ipso facto wipe out his statutory obligation to maintain his former wife, provided she remains unmarried and unable to maintain herself,” the court said.
The maintenance case dates back to 2019, when the trial court awarded Rs 3,500 a month, Rs 1,500 to the wife and Rs 2,000 to their daughter. The dispute continued after the divorce decree in 2022, with execution proceedings already pending and distress warrants issued in April 2024.
Marriage followed by years of litigation
The couple married in 1995 under Hindu rites and customs and had two children and the family initially lived in rented accommodation. Between 2001 and 2003, land was acquired, and a residential structure was built with assistance from the wife’s family. The husband also set up a business.
Their relationship later deteriorated, resulting in several civil and criminal proceedings. A dispute in July 2018 led to a police case based on the wife’s allegations of physical assault and acid-related violence. The husband also lodged a police case alleging ouster, followed by litigation concerning property and mortgaged bank assets.
The wife filed the maintenance case in 2019. On October 15 that year, the trial magistrate granted Rs 3,500 per month as interim maintenance, Rs 1,500 for the wife and Rs 2,000 for the daughter.
Story continues below this ad
Divorce did not end wife’s claim
The husband separately sought dissolution of the marriage. The proceedings went ex parte and a divorce decree was granted on June 20, 2022. The wife later filed proceedings seeking to set aside that decree, which remained pending.
As maintenance arrears accumulated, execution proceedings followed. The husband’s attempts to stop the maintenance case on the ground of the divorce were rejected by the trial court on October 6, 2023, and March 2, 2024. Distress warrants were issued on April 4, 2024.
The husband argued that the divorce had ended the spousal relationship, claiming that he had been ousted from the matrimonial home, lost his livelihood, and was surviving on his aged mother’s pension. The wife’s side disputed his financial claims and said he continued to run his business.
The high court held that the divorce itself did not erase the wife’s statutory maintenance claim. It noted that the statutory definition of “wife” includes a woman divorced by her husband who has not remarried. The court also declined to decide disputed questions about the husband’s income, property and alleged ouster at this stage. It held that such issues were matters for trial and could not be resolved through a mini-trial in revisional proceedings.
Story continues below this ad
Daughter’s Rs 2,000 maintenance set aside
The daughter had attained majority in October 2017, before the maintenance petition was filed in 2019. The high court noted that a major child can claim maintenance under the relevant provision only if the child is unable to maintain themselves because of a physical or mental abnormality or injury.
It said that she was healthy and had no such disability and her inclusion in the maintenance order was therefore “wholly without jurisdiction”. The court consequently set aside the Rs 2,000 monthly maintenance awarded to the daughter, along with the related execution proceedings and distress warrants.
It also noted that an unmarried Hindu daughter may have a separate civil remedy to seek maintenance from her father under personal law. Such a claim has to be pursued through appropriate civil proceedings.
50 per cent arrears
Taking note of the original maintenance order, which was passed in 2019, before the Supreme Court’s directions on disclosure of assets and liabilities, the court said the conflicting claims about the husband’s financial position could not be resolved through guesswork.
Story continues below this ad
It observed that execution could not “degenerate into a blind, punitive tool”, but a defaulter also could not stall the process without demonstrating bona fides. The court therefore stayed the coercive execution proceedings and distress warrants, subject to the husband depositing 50 per cent of the genuine accumulated arrears attributable strictly to the wife’s share of interim maintenance, excluding the daughter’s share.
Vineet Upadhyay is an Assistant Editor with The Indian Express (Digital), where he leads specialized coverage of the Indian judicial system. Expertise Specialized Legal Authority: Vineet has spent the better part of his career analyzing the intricacies of the law. His expertise lies in "demystifying" judgments from the Supreme Court of India, various High Courts, and District Courts. His reporting covers a vast spectrum of legal issues, including: Constitutional & Civil Rights: Reporting on landmark rulings regarding privacy, equality, and state accountability. Criminal Justice & Enforcement: Detailed coverage of high-profile cases involving the Enforcement Directorate (ED), NIA, and POCSO matters. Consumer Rights & Environmental Law: Authoritative pieces on medical negligence compensation, environmental protection (such as the "living person" status of rivers), and labor rights. Over a Decade of Professional Experience: Prior to joining The Indian Express, he served as a Principal Correspondent/Legal Reporter for The Times of India and held significant roles at The New Indian Express. His tenure has seen him report from critical legal hubs, including Delhi and Uttarakhand. ... Read More
KioskNews shows a cleaned-up reading view extracted from the publisher’s page — the original always lives on their site, not ours.