Court emphasized that interim maintenance must ensure the dependent spouse's reasonable comfort, considering financial capabilities and the child's welfare, thereby facilitating access to justice.

In the High Court at Calcutta Circuit Bench at Jalpaiguri FA/7/2024 IA NO: CAN/5/2024, CAN/7/2025 SURAKEHA SHARMA BRAHAMIN VS DIWAS PRASAD SHARMA BRAHAMIN Mr. Uday Sankar Sarkar, Adv.

Mr. Pradip Chatterjee, Adv.

…for the appellant Mr. Subham Ghosh, Adv.

Mr. Nayank Roy, Adv.

…for the respondent Re: CAN/5/2024 This is an application seeking maintenance pendente lite.

Briefly, the marriage between the appellant wife and the respondent husband was solemnized on 16th October, 2009. Subsequently, out of wedlock one male child was born on 15th March, 2011. Thereafter, matrimonial disputes have arisen between the appellant wife and the respondent husband. In this background, the respondent husband was compelled to file Matrimonial Suit No. 61 of 2020. By the impugned decree dated 12th July, 2024 passed by the Learned Additional District Judge, 1st Court at Darjeeling, the marriage of the parties stood dissolved.

The instant application had been filed seeking maintenance pendente lite. It is submitted on behalf of the appellant that save and except a sum of Rs.7,000/- which is paid by virtue of an order dated 3rd December, 2013 passed in an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 the appellant is not receiving any further amount. In this background, it is contended that a sum of Rs. 7,000/- is a meagre amount for sustenance of the appellant and her minor son. The appellant also relies on the prolonged litigation costs which are being incurred by the petitioner.

In this background, the appellant seeks enhancement of the maintenance to approximately Rs.35,000/- (inclusive of the amount of Rs.7,000/- which is already been paid).

Pursuant to the earlier orders, the details of the monthly payment as provided by the Officiating Commanding Officer of the respondent husband have been adduced in this proceeding.

It is appears from the said details that the gross salary of the respondent husband is approximately Rs.50,000/- which increases every quarter to approximately Rs.80,000/- (inclusive of Dearness Allowance). Thereafter, after making a necessary statutory deductions including the payment being made to the appellant wife, the petitioner is receiving a sum of approximately Rs.42,000/-.

It is also contended on behalf of the respondent husband that he is having to take care of his ailing mother and substantial portion out of the sum of Rs.42,000/- is being paid for her expenses.

On behalf of the appellant wife, it is submitted that the mother of the respondent husband is also being looked after by her other sons and that the she is enjoying family pension.

In Jasbir Kaur Sehgal v. District Judge, Dehradun , (1997) 7 SCC 7: AIR 1997 SC 3397, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has emphasized that the quantum of interim maintenance must allow the applicant to live in reasonable comfort, consistent with the standard of living she enjoyed while living with the spouse. At the same time, it must not be excessive or extortionate. It is not subject to a fixed formula but depends upon the facts, status, needs, and means of both parties. In conclusion, section 24 is a crucial safeguard in matrimonial law, upholding access to justice and basic dignity of life for the dependent spouse during pendency of proceedings. Courts have consistently interpreted it liberally to prevent hardship, ensure fairness, and maintain parity in adversarial proceedings, particularly in view of the economic vulnerability of wives who are otherwise left without sustenance or means to contest proceedings meaningfully. It is to be remembered that the remedy of maintenance pendente lite is a measure of social justice to prevent wives and children from falling into destitution or vagrancy.

In view of the above, having considered the financial picture of the respondent husband and all other relevant facts we are of the view that the amount of Rs.7,000/- alone is grossly insufficient for sustenance of the appellant wife and her minor son. The paramount consideration is that