Back
2026 Supreme(Cal) 242
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
UDAY KUMAR, J.
Jyotirmoy Biswas – Petitioner
Versus
State Of West Bengal And Anr. – Respondents
CRR 3578 OF 2022
Decided On : 05-05-2026
Important Points
Subject
Family Law - Spousal and Child Maintenance
Act Referred
Headnote
(B) Maintenance - Determination of quantum - Disclosure of assets and liabilities - Mandatory guidelines - Compliance with Supreme Court directives regarding affidavit of disclosure is mandatory in all maintenance proceedings - Failure to follow such directives makes an order procedurally fragile and unsustainable. (Paras 6.2.3, 6.2.8)
(C) Maintenance - Earning capacity - Professional qualifications - Financial autonomy - Spouses possessing high-demand professional qualifications cannot be legally categorized as "unable to maintain herself" based solely on a self-serving statement of current unemployment; earning potential must be a material consideration. (Paras 6.3.5, 6.3.8)
(D) Maintenance - Minor child - Welfare - Independent obligation - A child's right to maintenance is an absolute, non-delegable obligation of the father, irrespective of marital discord or the mother's independent earning capacity; such claims must be isolated from parental disputes. (Paras 6.6.2, 6.6.6)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner challenged an ad-interim maintenance order passed in domestic violence proceedings. The petitioner argued that the trial court passed the order with procedural haste, bypassing the mandatory exchange of financial affidavits, and failed to account for the respondent's specialized professional qualifications and significant earning capacity.
Findings of Court:
The court held that the order failed to comply with established procedural mandates regarding financial disclosure and failed to perform a balanced assessment of the claimant's earning capacity. While the maintenance for the wife was set aside and remanded for a fresh, transparent determination, the maintenance for the minor child was affirmed as an essential, independent obligation.
Issues: The main issues were the maintainability of a revision application against an ad-interim order, the necessity of mandatory financial disclosure, the relevance of a spouse's professional earning capacity, and the independence of a child's right to maintenance.
Ratio Decidendi: An interim maintenance order passed without complying with mandatory transparency guidelines and ignoring the professional earning capacity of the claimant spouse is a jurisdictional perversity. The child's right to sustenance is a sacrosanct, independent obligation that remains unaffected by the procedural defects in the spouse's claim.
Result: Revision application allowed in part; order regarding the wife's maintenance set aside and remanded; child's maintenance affirmed.
For the Petitioner: Mr. Pritam Choudhury
For the Respondent: Mr. Shibaji Kumar Das, Mr. Dipendu Sarkar
JUDGMENT :
UDAY KUMAR, J.
1. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND FACTS
1.1. The Petitioner, an Engineer currently engaged with the Calcutta Electric Supply Corporation (CESC), has approached this Court invoking its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The challenge is directed against an ex-parte ad-interim order dated 01.06.2022, rendered by the Learned Judicial Magistrate, Bangaon, in C. Case No. 123 of 2021 (Priyanka Biswas vs. Jyotirmoy Biswas & Ors.). By way of the impugned order, the Learned Magistrate, purportedly exercising powers under Section 23 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, directed the Petitioner to remit a monthly maintenance allowance of Rs. 12,000/- to the Opposite Party No. 2 (Wife) and Rs. 8,000/- for the sustenance of their minor daughter.
1.2. The Petitioner assailed the impugned order primarily on the grounds of procedural irregularity, the material suppression of facts regarding the Wife’s independent professional income, and a fundamental violation of the principles of natural justice.
1.3. The factual canvas reveals a union between two individuals of formidable professional standing. The marriage was solemnized on 19.03.2014 under the Special Marriage Act, 1954. While the Petitioner manages the power infrastructure of the city as a Mains Engineer responsible for critical urban infrastructure, the Opposite Party No 2 is an accomplished medical professional as a specialized in Critical Care Medicine (MBBS, DNB), who has held prestigious positions as a Senior Registrar in premier multi-specialty hospitals including Woodlands and R.N. Tagore. Out of this wedlock, a daughter, Devanshi, was born on 26.02.2020.
1.4. The domestic tranquillity of the parties proved short-lived. Marital ties frayed over escalating differences regarding lifestyle and familial obligations, reached a breaking point in March 2021, leading to the Wife’s departure from the matrimonial home at Bansdroni to her paternal residence at Bangaon. This separation acted as a catalyst for a multifaceted legal offensive. The Wife initiated three distinct sets of proceedings:
(i) A criminal complaint under Sections 498A/406/506/341/34 IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act alleging physical and mental torture;
(ii) A maintenance application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C.; and
(iii) The present application under the P.W.D.V. Act, 2005, alleging domestic violence.
1.5. Central to the Wife's grievance is a socially sensitive allegation of a "grave breach of marital trust," predicated upon an asserted incestuous proximity between the Husband and his first cousin. Conversely, the Petitioner characterizes these allegations as "bohemian fabrications," contending that his involvement with the said relative was purely a discharge of familial guardianship during a period of financial exigency.
1.6. In her pursuit of interim relief, the Wife estimated the Petitioner’s monthly emoluments to be a staggering Rs. 2,10,000/-, while simultaneously portraying herself as an "unemployed and destitute" woman, surviving on the mercies of her ailing father. The Petitioner, however, brings to the fore a narrative of "material suppression," asserting that the Wife is a highly independent professional with significant earning capacity, while his own net take-home pay is a modest Rs. 70,000/-, encumbered by mandatory deductions and housing loan liabilities.
1.7. The core of the Petitioner's grievance lies in the "procedural haste" displayed by the Learned Court below. The impugned order was passed on the very day the Domestic Incident Report (DIR) was placed on record, without the Petitioner being afforded an opportunity to file his Affidavit of Assets and Liabilities, thereby bypassing the mandatory procedural architecture mandated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajnesh v. Neha .
3. POINTS FOR DETERMINATION
3.1. Based on the rival pleadings, the professional credentials involved, and the procedural history of the matter, the following Points
