PWDV Act | Interim Maintenance Must Be Fair & Reasonable, Cannot Be 'Meagre' Amount Unmatched To Husband's High Income: Calcutta High Court - 2025-07-01

Calcutta High Court Hikes Interim Maintenance for Hasin Jahan , Rules Amount Must Match Husband's High Income

Kolkata: The Calcutta High Court has significantly increased the interim monthly maintenance for Hasin Jahan and her minor daughter, ruling that the amount awarded by lower courts was unjustifiably meagre and inconsistent with her husband's substantial income. The bench of Dr. Justice Ajoy KumarMukherjee revised the maintenance, stressing that while monetary relief under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (PWDV Act) is not for "equalization of wealth," it must be fair, reasonable, and ensure a standard of living the aggrieved person is accustomed to.

The court enhanced the interim maintenance for Ms. Jahan from ₹50,000 to ₹1,50,000 per month and for their daughter from ₹80,000 to ₹2,50,000 per month, payable from the date of filing the application.

Case Background

The case stems from a matrimonial dispute between Hasin Jahan and her husband, a national-level cricketer. Ms. Jahan filed an application under the PWDV Act in 2018, alleging severe physical and mental torture against herself and her daughter. She sought interim monetary relief of ₹7 lakhs per month for herself and ₹3 lakhs for her daughter.

Initially, a Magistrate's court rejected her plea for interim maintenance entirely, while granting ₹80,000 per month for the child. On appeal, a Sessions Court awarded Ms. Jahan ₹50,000 per month and upheld the daughter's maintenance at ₹80,000. Aggrieved by what she termed a "meagre" amount, Ms. Jahan approached the Calcutta High Court.

Arguments of the Parties

For the Petitioner ( Hasin Jahan ): - Counsel argued that the lower courts mechanically awarded a low amount despite evidence of the husband's annual income being approximately ₹7.19 crores (for the year 2020-21). - It was contended that Ms. Jahan 's meagre income of ₹16,000 per month was insufficient to support herself and her children, and her husband's high status necessitated a higher maintenance to maintain a similar standard of living. - The petitioner's counsel emphasized that the purpose of the PWDV Act—a social justice legislation—was being defeated by the inadequate relief.

For the Opposite Party (The Husband): - Senior counsel argued that Ms. Jahan , a model and actress, had a substantial income of her own which she had allegedly concealed from the court. - It was argued that the petitioner's demand for ₹10 lakhs per month was an attempt at "equalization of wealth," which is not the purpose of maintenance law. - Citing the Supreme Court's decision in Rinku Baheti Vs. Sandesh Sharda , the husband’s counsel maintained that maintenance should be consistent with the standard of living during the marriage, not the husband's current rising status.

Court's Analysis and Legal Principles

Justice Mukherjee , in a detailed judgment, established a prima facie case of domestic violence based on the FIR lodged by Ms. Jahan , which had culminated in a charge sheet.

The Court navigated the fine line between providing adequate support and sanctioning "equalization of wealth." It heavily relied on established legal principles: - Maintenance must be adequate and fair: The Court found no clear basis for how the lower courts arrived at the figures of ₹50,000 and ₹80,000, deeming them insufficient given the husband's proven high income. - Wife's income is not an absolute bar: The Court cited Zahir Abdullah & another Vs. Oman Abdullah to affirm that a wife earning some money does not absolve the husband of his duty to provide maintenance. - Maintenance is not wealth equalization: While agreeing with the principle laid down in Rinku Baheti , the Court observed that this cannot be a pretext to award a "very low amount of monetary relief" that fails to match the parties' standard of living.

"Therefore while it is true that the question of awarding an excessive amount of monetary relief to make an attempt for equalization of wealth with the husband/ opposite party does not arise but at the same time awarding of very low amount of monetary relief also cannot be accepted which does not match with the standard of living of the parties," the Court observed.

It further noted that the wife is entitled to a level of maintenance that she enjoyed during the marriage and which reasonably secures her and her child's future.

Final Decision

Finding the previous orders lacking a rational basis, the High Court revised the interim maintenance.

"In my considered opinion a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- per month to the petitioner no.1(wife) and Rs. 2,50,000/- to her daughter would be just fair and reasonable to ensure financial stability for both the petitioners, till disposal of the main application," the order stated.

The Court directed the trial court to dispose of the main application under Section 12 of the PWDV Act expeditiously, clarifying that the final decision should be based on evidence and uninfluenced by the observations in this interim order.