The Calcutta High Court has overturned a previous decision that increased the monthly maintenance payment to an Army personnel’s wife from Rs 7,000 to Rs 14,000. The court determined that the magistrate had made this ruling without properly evaluating evidence or considering the husband’s actual income and financial situation when deciding the maintenance amount.

Justice Chaitali Chatterjee Das addressed the wife’s request for maintenance for herself and her son under the Domestic Violence (DV) Act. In the ruling dated September 28, the court noted, “It is undisputed that the opposite party is in service…but he did not disclose his present income, which he is bound to produce before the court by filing an affidavit of assets and liabilities in consonance with the mandate of the apex court.”

The court also pointed out that the son had reached the age of 18 before the maintenance request was submitted, indicating that he was not eligible for maintenance under the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC).

The couple, who wed in December 1989 according to Muslim customs, registered their marriage with a Muslim registrar and kazi appointed by the West Bengal government. They had two children—a daughter and a son. The husband enlisted in the Indian Army in 1991 and served as a havildar.

The wife claimed that their marriage experienced significant strain, resulting in physical and emotional abuse. She alleged that her husband abandoned her in 2012 after his deployment to North India, leaving both her and their son without financial support. Tragically, their daughter passed away during the legal proceedings.

Representing the wife, attorneys Sobhendu Sekhar Roy, Debabriya Samanta, and Samrat Ghosh argued that she lacked her own source of income. Following her appeals to the Army authorities, deductions were made from the husband’s salary to support her and their son. Subsequently, she initiated legal proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, where a magistrate initially awarded her Rs 7,000 per month, later raising it to Rs 14,000. The husband contested this increase in the appellate court, which reverted the maintenance back to Rs 7,000 monthly. The wife then appealed to the high court against this reduction.

The high court concurred with the appellate court’s assessment that there was insufficient justification for raising the maintenance amount from Rs 7,000 to Rs 14,000. It highlighted that the magistrate had issued the order without taking any evidence or providing a rationale for the increase.

Referencing a Supreme Court ruling, the high court emphasized that both parties are required to submit affidavits detailing their assets and liabilities so the court can accurately evaluate their income and establish a fair maintenance amount. The court noted the necessity for both parties to have the opportunity to present evidence and cross-examine, while also stressing the importance of providing reasons for judicial decisions. The magistrate’s failure to explain the rationale behind the increased maintenance was a significant shortcoming.

The high court concluded by affirming the maintenance reduction, stating that the Rs 14,000 order had been issued without sufficient evidence, without assessing the husband’s income, and without justifying the increase. It mandated that both parties submit their affidavits of assets and liabilities, enabling the magistrate to reassess the maintenance amount appropriately.