Court holds that concealment of income by husband cannot justify lowering maintenance; directs expeditious trial of main maintenance case under Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005
In a significant judgment delivered on August 28, 2026, the Calcutta High Court, presided over by Justice Uday Kumar, quashed an appellate order that had reduced the interim maintenance amount for a minor daughter, restoring the original trial court’s order. The case, Sanjibani Das Samanta @ Sanjiboni v. State of West Bengal, revolved around the appropriate quantum of interim maintenance payable under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act).
The dispute originated from a maintenance proceeding initiated by the petitioner-wife under Section 12 of the DV Act before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kharagpur. The trial court had granted interim maintenance of Rs. 7,000 per month to the wife and Rs. 9,000 per month for the minor daughter, taking into account the husband’s past overseas salary of approximately Rs. 1,08,000. The husband appealed this order, and the Sessions Judge reduced the daughter’s maintenance from Rs. 9,000 to Rs. 8,000 per month without providing any cogent reason.
The petitioner-wife challenged this reduction via a revisional petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The High Court noted that the appellate court had itself recognized that the husband failed to disclose his true income and suppressed evidence, yet paradoxically reduced the maintenance amount. The Court emphasized that maintenance proceedings serve a social welfare objective, and concealment of income by the earning spouse shifts the evidentiary burden onto him under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act to reveal his true financial capacity.
Justice Uday Kumar held that the appellate court’s arbitrary reduction without intelligible rationale amounted to non-application of mind and perversity, thus violating principles of reasoned judicial orders. The High Court restored the trial court’s interim maintenance order and directed the trial court to expedite the main maintenance proceeding, preferably concluding it within six months after recording oral and documentary evidence from both parties.
This judgment reinforces the judiciary’s commitment to protecting vulnerable dependents, especially minor children, in domestic violence and maintenance matters. It underscores the principle that courts should not reward or tolerate income concealment by reducing maintenance obligations. The case also draws on the Supreme Court’s precedent in Rajnesh v. Neha [(2021) 2 SCC 324], affirming the welfare-centric approach to maintenance law.
Bottom Line:
Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 - Interim maintenance cannot be arbitrarily reduced without cogent reasoning, especially when evidence suggests concealment of income by the earning spouse. Appellate courts must adhere to the principle that maintenance proceedings are imbued with a social welfare objective.
Statutory provision(s):
Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 Sections 12, 23(2), 29; Indian Evidence Act, 1872 Section 106; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 482
Sanjibani Das Samanta @ Sanjiboni v. State of West Bengal, (Calcutta) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2969165
