The Calcutta High Court, in a significant ruling on spousal maintenance, has held that an Income Tax return cannot be treated as conclusive proof of a person’s income and that the quantum of maintenance should aim to preserve the lifestyle the wife was accustomed to during the marriage. Justice Bibhas Ranjan De modified a maintenance order, increasing the monthly amount for the wife from Rs. 20,000 to Rs. 25,000 and introducing an automatic 5% hike every two years to account for inflation.
The Court was hearing two cross-revision applications filed by a husband and wife, both challenging an order from the Judicial Magistrate, 5th Court, Barackpore, which had reduced the wife’s maintenance from Rs. 30,000 to Rs. 20,000 per month following the husband’s retirement.
Background of the Case
The case involved a married couple with a son. Following matrimonial discord, the wife was granted maintenance of Rs. 30,000 per month in proceedings under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).
After the husband’s retirement, he filed an application under Section 127 CrPC seeking a reduction in the maintenance amount due to changed circumstances. The Ld. Magistrate, by an order dated 30.12.2023, reduced the maintenance to Rs. 20,000 per month, effective from the date of the order.
Aggrieved, the wife filed a revision application seeking to set aside the reduction. The husband also filed a revision application, praying for a further reduction in the maintenance amount and for the order to be effective from his date of retirement, not the date of the order. The High Court consolidated both applications for a single judgment.
Arguments of the Parties
Counsel for the Wife: The wife’s counsel argued that “maintenance is not charity but a legal obligation of the husband.” She contended that the husband had suppressed his actual earnings from sources including the Share Market, Provident Fund, Gratuity, and income from two stalls and a flat. It was argued that the trial court, despite noting these other means, wrongly reduced the maintenance. The counsel emphasized that maintenance should uphold the “dignity and standard of living that the wife was accustomed to during marriage, keeping in mind the concept of equi status.” She further stated that the wife is a homemaker and her adult son is still dependent on her, making the reduction unjustified.
Counsel for the Husband: The husband’s counsel denied the wife’s claims and relied on the husband’s income tax return for the assessment year 2024-2025, which showed a total annual income of Rs. 5,13,890, or approximately Rs. 42,824 per month. He argued that the Rs. 20,000 maintenance awarded by the Magistrate was reasonable. Counsel further claimed the wife had an independent income from fixed deposits, their son was an adult earning from tuitions, and the husband had significant expenses, including medical bills, insurance premiums, rent, and a driver’s salary of Rs. 15,000 per month. He also submitted that the husband’s retirement benefit of Rs. 70,58,000 was used to repay loans and the balance was given as an interest-free loan to his sister.
High Court’s Analysis and Decision
Justice Bibhas Ranjan De, after considering the rival contentions, framed two key issues for adjudication: whether the reduction in maintenance was legally sustainable, and from what date any modification should take effect.
The Court observed that an income tax return cannot be considered conclusive proof of income. The judgment states, “…the income tax return of an individual cannot be considered as conclusive proof of his income as primarily the return is based on the information provided by the tax payer himself… there is always a possibility of potential of under reporting.”
The Court endorsed a “holistic approach” to assessing financial capability, noting that the Apex Court has called for a “deeper scrutiny of the income of the alimony prayer, including all declared, undeclared and historical earnings.” It held that courts should not just examine present income but also a person’s “potential, past earnings and assets.”
The judgment emphasized a shift in the judicial approach towards maintenance, stating, “maintenance is no longer a hand out to barely cover subsistence. Rather it has now become a tool to preserve life style stability.“ It further underscored that “post separation maintenance should mirror the life style of the wife during period of their married life.”
The Court took particular note of the husband’s own admission of his expenses, observing: “In the case at hand, the petitioner in connection with CRR 472 of 2024 has himself admitted that he has to incur expenses to the tune of Rs. 15,000/- towards his driver’s salary. But, ironically he is not inclined to pay maintenance to the tune of Rs. 20,000/- even to the person who has spent a considerable period of her life with him and also with whom he has a son.”
Based on this analysis, the Court concluded that it must “re-evaluate the impugned order and make modification with regard to the quantum of maintenance.”
On the second issue of the effective date, the Court examined Section 127 of the CrPC and found “no specific provision which sheds light on effective date of determination of such reduction.” It held that the statute grants discretion to the Court and found no reason to interfere with the Magistrate’s decision to make the order effective from the date of the order (30.12.2023).
Final Order
In conclusion, the High Court disposed of both revision applications with the following directions:
- The husband is directed to pay maintenance of Rs. 25,000/- per month to the wife.
- An automatic 5% hike shall be applied to the maintenance amount every two years to adjust for inflation.
- The order shall take effect from the date of the Magistrate’s impugned order, i.e., 30.12.2023.
