The Calcutta High Court has ruled that the dissolution of a marriage does not release a man from his statutory duty to support his former wife, provided she has not remarried and lacks the means to sustain herself.
Justice Uday Kumar upheld an interim monthly maintenance allowance of Rs 1,500 awarded to the woman, while setting aside a separate Rs 2,000 monthly payment previously granted to the couple’s adult daughter. The court also granted the husband conditional relief from coercive recovery, staying execution proceedings and distress warrants on the condition that he deposits 50 per cent of the genuine arrears owed strictly to his ex-wife within four weeks.
Statutory Definition Protects Divorced Women
The ruling arrived on a revisional plea filed by the husband, who sought to dismiss the maintenance and execution proceedings by arguing that an ex parte decree of divorce granted to him in 2022 had brought an end to the spousal relationship and his associated liabilities.
Rejecting that position, the court stated that lawmakers clearly intended that dissolving a marriage—even under a decree obtained by the husband—does not automatically erase his legal responsibility to provide financial support to his former spouse. The bench emphasised that under the governing legal statute, the definition of a wife explicitly includes a woman who has obtained a divorce or has been divorced by her husband and has not remarried.
Maintenance for Major Daughter Struck Down
The high court held that the trial magistrate had acted without jurisdiction by including the couple’s daughter in the original maintenance award.
Records showed the daughter attained the age of majority in October 2017, two years before the maintenance petition was initiated in 2019. Justice Kumar noted that under the relevant legal provision, an adult offspring is entitled to maintenance only if suffering from an injury or a physical or mental disability that prevents self-sustenance.
Because the daughter was healthy and faced no such impediment, the bench quashed the Rs 2,000 monthly allowance granted to her, along with the execution proceedings and distress warrants tied to her portion. The court noted, however, that an unmarried Hindu daughter retains the option to seek maintenance from her father through separate civil proceedings under personal law.
Stay on Coercive Enforcement
Addressing the enforcement dispute, the high court observed that judicial execution proceedings must not deteriorate into a blind, punitive mechanism, while also stressing that a defaulting party cannot halt proceedings without proving good faith.
The initial maintenance order of Rs 3,500 per month—dividing Rs 1,500 for the wife and Rs 2,000 for the daughter—was issued on October 15, 2019, prior to the Supreme Court’s binding guidelines governing formal disclosures of assets and liabilities. The court observed that conflicting claims regarding the husband’s financial position cannot be decided by guesswork. It added that disputed claims concerning property, alleged eviction from the home, and business revenue are matters to be established during trial and cannot be determined through a summary assessment in revisional proceedings.
Years of Matrimonial and Property Discord
The couple married according to Hindu rites in 1995 and had two children, initially residing in rented housing. Between 2001 and 2003, they purchased land and constructed a residential building with financial support from the wife’s family, while the husband established a commercial venture.
The relationship eventually fractured, triggering multiple legal disputes. A confrontation in July 2018 led to a police complaint by the wife alleging physical assault and acid-related violence. The husband lodged a cross-complaint claiming he had been ousted from the residence, which was followed by litigation concerning residential property and mortgaged bank assets.
After the wife filed for maintenance in 2019, the husband pursued a separate petition to dissolve the marriage. An ex parte divorce decree was granted in his favour on June 20, 2022. The wife subsequently initiated proceedings to set aside that decree, which remain pending.
As maintenance arrears mounted, the husband filed applications to terminate the maintenance case citing the divorce decree. The trial court dismissed his applications on October 6, 2023, and March 2, 2024, leading to the issuance of distress warrants on April 4, 2024. Before the high court, the husband argued that he had lost his livelihood and was dependent on his elderly mother’s pension, a claim the wife’s counsel contested by asserting he continues to operate his business.
