The Calcutta High Court has issued a significant ruling clarifying that maintenance awarded to a spouse under Section 125 of the CrPC should go beyond basic sustenance; it must aim to preserve the standard of living that the spouse was accustomed to during marriage. In doing so, the Court emphasized that the scope of maintenance had evolved over time—as a social justice mechanism, it now ensures continuity of dignity and lifestyle, and not merely rescue from destitution.
In the case before the Court, the wife sought an order for maintenance following a breakdown in the marital relationship. She contended that although she had personal means, they were inadequate to sustain the lifestyle she previously enjoyed in the matrimonial home. The husband, on the other hand, challenged the petition by arguing that since she was capable of self-sustenance, she was not eligible for support. This raised a fundamental legal point: whether maintenance should simply cover minimum necessities or reflect the marital standard of living.
Justice Bibhas Ranjan De, presiding over the petition, recognized that Section 125 was originally designed to prevent vagrancy and destitution. However, modern jurisprudence interprets it more broadly. Drawing upon earlier Supreme Court guidelines, the Court noted that maintenance must be determined by considering multiple factors: the income and status of both spouses; the needs and liabilities of the applicant; and the standard of living during the marriage. In that light, compensation is not limited to shelter, clothes, and food—it extends to aspects necessary to maintain a dignified life consistent with prior norms.
Rejecting the husband’s argument, the Court held that the wife’s ability to earn a living does not automatically disqualify her claim. Instead, the test is whether her income is sufficient to maintain the lifestyle she has grown accustomed to—taking into account her education, qualifications, and her former role in the marriage. Even modest earnings, when inadequate to uphold a reasonable standard of living, do not bar a claim. In such instances, maintenance must bridge the gap between her resources and reasonable needs.
The Court further made it clear that earning capacity alone is not determinative. Where a spouse has income but still cannot live comparably to the marital standard (especially compared to the financial position of the other spouse), maintenance should reflect that disparity. The aim is equitable sustenance—not equal lifestyle, but also not deprivation. Courts must thus strike a balance between fairness to the payer and dignity for the receiver.
Applying these principles to the present case, the Court held that the wife was entitled to maintenance adequate for preserving an appropriate standard of living—not mere survival. It directed the lower court to reassess the quantum of maintenance, ensuring it took into account her individual needs, customary marital lifestyle, and the husband's financial capability. This reassessment was to be done afresh, guided by the clarified interpretation of Section 125.
This ruling reaffirms a progressive trend in family law: maintenance under Section 125 is not merely a safety net for destitute individuals; it is a tool to uphold dignity and continuity of life post-separation. It underscores the Court’s responsibility to maintain balance—ensuring that needy spouses retain their social standing and quality of life, while also ensuring that the maintenance amount remains fair relative to the payer’s means.
By focusing on standard of living rather than subsistence, the Calcutta High Court has further shaped the landscape of maintenance jurisprudence. The judgment highlights the judiciary’s evolving view of maintenance as an instrument of social justice—one that protects vulnerable spouses from a drastic fall in status, and promotes equitable separation outcomes reflective of lived realities.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.