In Partha Sarathi Guha v. Supriya Guha, CRR 1465 of 2018 (2026:CHC-AS:1813), decided on 12 October 2026, the Calcutta High Court addressed a maintenance order that fixed Rs 25,000 per month without ascertaining either the husband's actual income or the wife's entitlement. The Court set the order aside and sent the application back for a fresh, evidence-based decision — but it did not leave the wife unprovided: Rs 10,000 per month must be paid until the rehearing concludes, with adjustments to follow the final outcome.
A short marriage and a long case
The parties married in August 2007 under the Special Marriage Act and separated within months. There followed the familiar procedural archaeology of a broken marriage: a restitution suit by the husband, later withdrawn; a divorce suit dismissed for default; a complaint under Section 498A IPC; proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act; and, in 2014, the wife\'s application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure — the provision now carried forward as Section 144 of the BNSS. In March 2018 the Family Court awarded her Rs 25,000 per month with Rs 20,000 in litigation costs. The husband\'s revision against that order is what the High Court decided this month, eight years later.
The competing cases
What the High Court held
Justice Chaitali Chatterjee Das identified the defect at the root of the award: the Family Court had ascertained neither the husband\'s actual income nor the wife\'s entitlement. The order was, in the Court\'s words, absolutely silent about the entitlement of the opposite party — yet the sine qua non of a Section 125 application is that the wife is unable to maintain herself. Quantum had, in effect, been plucked from the air. The Court added a sentence that deserves a place in every maintenance brief: the legislature never intended the provision as a tool of punishment for the husband. Section 125 is a measure of social justice directed at preventing destitution, not a penal tariff on a failed marriage.
At the same time, the Court did not accept the husband\'s invitation to simply dismiss the claim. The defect was in the fact-finding, not necessarily in the result, and the remedy for missing findings is a remand. The Magistrate must rehear the application afresh, with both parties filing affidavits of assets and liabilities in the Rajnesh v. Neha format and adducing evidence, and must complete the exercise without further adjournments.
The interim arrangement is the part litigants should study. Pending the fresh decision, the husband pays Rs 10,000 per month by the 7th of each month, and sums already paid are to be adjusted against the final outcome. A remand therefore did not become a payment holiday — a point the Court underlined by noticing the husband\'s earlier arrest for non-compliance.
Lessons for both sides
For claimants, the judgment is a reminder that entitlement must be proved, not presumed: plead and establish the inability to maintain oneself, explain any long delay in approaching the court, and file a complete assets-and-liabilities affidavit, because a quantum unsupported by findings is vulnerable years later in revision. For respondents, the case shows both the power and the limits of the income attack: suppression of income and abandonment of the trial invite adverse presumptions, and even a successful revision will ordinarily produce a remand with interim payments — not an escape from the obligation. The Delhi courts apply the same architecture under Section 144 BNSS, with the Rajnesh affidavits as the evidentiary spine of every contested maintenance case.
Frequently Asked Questions
What was wrong with the Family Court's order?
The High Court found it silent on the two questions a Section 125 order must answer: what the husband actually earns, and whether and why the wife is unable to maintain herself. The quantum of Rs 25,000 had been fixed without those findings, and the Court observed that the provision was never intended by the legislature as a tool of punishment for the husband.
Does the remand mean the wife gets nothing in the meantime?
No. The Court directed the husband to pay Rs 10,000 per month by the 7th of each month until the Family Court decides afresh. Amounts already paid are to be adjusted in light of the final outcome, so neither side is prejudiced by the interregnum.
What must happen at the rehearing?
Both parties must file affidavits of assets and liabilities — the discipline the Supreme Court mandated in Rajnesh v. Neha — and lead evidence on income and entitlement. The High Court directed that the rehearing be completed without further adjournments.
Is delay in filing a maintenance application fatal?
Delay is not an absolute bar, but this judgment shows it is a relevant circumstance: the wife had approached the court years after the separation without adequate explanation, and that unexplained gap contributed to the order being revisited. A claimant should plead the reasons for any significant delay rather than leave them to inference.