Court clarifies divorced wife’s entitlement to maintenance continues if unmarried; major daughter pursuing studies without disability not entitled under CrPC; execution of maintenance arrears subject to asset disclosure and bona fide compliance.
In a significant judgment delivered on September 7, 2026, the Calcutta High Court, presided over by Justice Uday Kumar, has decisively ruled on the maintenance rights of a divorced wife and her major daughter under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC). The case, Samar Paul v. State of West Bengal, arose from an acrimonious matrimonial dispute intertwined with civil and criminal proceedings, highlighting the complex interplay of family law and procedural safeguards in maintenance claims.
The petitioner, Samar Paul, challenged ongoing maintenance and execution proceedings initiated by his former wife, Jyotsna Paul, who sought maintenance following an ex parte divorce decree granted in 2022. The petitioner contended that the divorce extinguished all maintenance obligations and further asserted that their daughter, Sangita Paul, being a major and healthy student, was not entitled to maintenance under Section 125(1)(c) CrPC. Additionally, the petitioner alleged that coercive execution measures, including distress warrants, were improperly issued without adherence to mandatory asset disclosure protocols mandated by the Supreme Court in Rajnesh v. Neha (2021).
Rejecting the petitioner’s contentions, the Court reaffirmed well-established legal principles. It held that under Explanation (b) to Section 125(1) CrPC, a divorced wife who has not remarried retains her status as a “wife” entitled to maintenance from her former husband. This obligation persists irrespective of the ex parte nature of the divorce decree and is consistent with precedents from the Supreme Court including Vanamala v. H.M. Ranganatha Bhatta (1995) and Rohtash Singh v. Smt. Ramendri (2000). The Court emphasized that dissolution of marriage does not ipso facto terminate the husband’s duty to maintain his divorced wife if she remains unmarried and unable to maintain herself.
On the question of maintenance for the major daughter, the Court underscored the strict statutory limitation under Section 125(1)(c) CrPC which permits maintenance only if the major child is physically or mentally incapacitated. Citing the Supreme Court’s ruling in Abhilasha v. Parkash (2021), the Court clarified that an unmarried major daughter who is pursuing education and free of any such disabilities is not entitled to maintenance under Section 125 CrPC. Instead, such claims must be pursued under the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, through civil proceedings. Accordingly, the Court set aside the maintenance award and execution measures in favor of the daughter.
Addressing the execution of maintenance arrears, the Court reiterated the necessity of strict compliance with the asset disclosure framework laid down by the Supreme Court in Rajnesh v. Neha. While acknowledging the petitioner’s claim of financial hardship, the Court found no credible evidence of destitution and viewed his statements with skepticism, noting ongoing business operations and active litigation sponsorship by the petitioner. To balance interests, the Court stayed the coercive execution proceedings subject to the petitioner depositing 50% of the genuine arrears owed to the wife within four weeks and directed the trial court to expedite the final disposal of the maintenance case with mandatory affidavits of assets and liabilities.
This judgment not only consolidates the legal understanding of maintenance rights of divorced wives under Section 125 CrPC but also clarifies the limited scope of maintenance for major children under criminal summary proceedings, reinforcing the importance of procedural safeguards in execution actions. The Court’s directions seek to ensure that maintenance proceedings do not become punitive but remain a tool of social justice consistent with legislative intent and judicial precedents.
Bottom Line:
A divorced wife is entitled to maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, provided she has not remarried, as per Explanation (b) to Section 125(1) CrPC. A major unmarried daughter, who attained majority prior to filing the petition and is pursuing studies without any physical or mental abnormality, is not entitled to maintenance under Section 125(1)(c) CrPC.
Statutory provision(s):
Section 125(1)(b), Section 125(1)(c), Section 125(3), Section 397, Section 401, Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 20(3) of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956
Samar Paul v. State of West Bengal, (Calcutta) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2975915
