In Shibham Bhakat (CRR 2111 of 2025, order dated 6 November 2026), Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya of the Calcutta High Court, sitting in the criminal revisional jurisdiction, stayed a trial court’s order granting the wife Rs 1,50,000 per month in maintenance, on the condition that the husband pays an ad hoc Rs 1,00,000 per month in the interim. The prima facie point that persuaded the court: the award exceeded the Rs 1,00,000 per month cap in the wife’s own pleading. The order is interim, and the matter goes to the regular Bench in December 2026 — but the question it frames recurs constantly in maintenance practice.
The case in one view
| Case | Shibham Bhakat, CRR 2111 of 2025 with CRAN 1 of 2025 |
|---|---|
| Court | Calcutta High Court, Criminal Revisional Jurisdiction (Vacation Bench), Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya J |
| Order dated | 6 November 2026 (interim) |
| Context | Revision against a trial court maintenance order of Rs 1,50,000 per month |
| Outcome | Order stayed; ad hoc Rs 1,00,000 per month payable; matter to the regular Bench |
The background
The husband challenged a trial court order directing him to pay the wife Rs 1,50,000 per month as maintenance. His case ran on three tracks: that his income from two commercial vehicles is only Rs 40,000 to 50,000 per month; that the trial court drew an adverse inference against him because his previous lawyer failed to file documents; and — the point that found prima facie traction — that the wife’s own pleading had claimed Rs 1,00,000 per month, so the award of Rs 1,50,000 exceeded what was prayed for.
The prima facie point: jurisdiction and the prayer
The vacation Bench took the husband’s affidavit of assets on record, subject to final adjudication, and recorded a prima facie finding that the trial judge exceeded jurisdiction by awarding more than the wife prayed for. On that footing the impugned order was stayed — but not unconditionally. The husband must pay an ad hoc Rs 1,00,000 per month until late December 2026 or further orders, with any excess or shortfall adjustable when the revision is finally decided. The matter now travels to the regular Bench.
Reading the order correctly: this is an interim stay on a prima facie view, not a declaration of law. The question whether a maintenance court may travel beyond the pleaded figure — given its duty to fix a fair and reasonable amount on the evidence — remains to be answered at final hearing.
The competing principles
Two strands pull against each other in cases like this. On one side, the general procedural discipline that a court does not ordinarily grant more than is claimed, and that a respondent shapes his defence to the case pleaded against him. On the other, the settled understanding that maintenance jurisdiction is a measure of social justice: the court assesses need and capacity on the affidavits and evidence, and pleadings in maintenance cases are often drafted early, before the true financial picture emerges through Rajnesh v. Neha disclosures. How a court balances the two — amendment of the claim, a reasoned finding on capacity, or restraint at the pleaded ceiling — is precisely the kind of question that gets settled in revisions such as this one.
What the order means in practice
The wider frame
Interim orders of this kind rarely make headlines, but they shape the real economics of matrimonial litigation: what is actually paid, month by month, while a revision pends. The order also illustrates sound revisional practice — identifying a single, crisp jurisdictional point for the stay, securing the wife through a substantial ad hoc payment, and keeping every contention open. Practitioners in Delhi will recognise the pattern from maintenance revisions before the High Court of Delhi, where stay applications are routinely decided on the same architecture of prima facie error plus protective conditions.
Frequently Asked Questions
What exactly did the High Court decide?
At this stage, only an interim arrangement. The court took the husband's affidavit of assets on record subject to final adjudication, found prima facie force in the argument that the trial court awarded more than the wife had prayed for, stayed the impugned order, and directed ad hoc payment of Rs 1,00,000 per month until late December 2026 or further orders, with any excess or shortfall adjustable at final disposal.
Is it settled that maintenance cannot exceed the amount claimed?
No — this order records a prima facie view in one case, not a final adjudication. Maintenance courts do have an obligation to assess need and capacity on the material before them, and the relationship between the pleaded figure and the final award is precisely what the regular Bench will examine. The order should be read as framing the question, not answering it.
What was the husband's case on income?
He claimed an income of Rs 40,000 to 50,000 per month from two commercial vehicles, and contended that the trial court drew an adverse inference against him because his lawyer failed to file documents. Those contentions remain open for final hearing; the stay rested on the pleading-cap point.
Does an interim stay wipe out the maintenance order?
No. The impugned order is suspended, not set aside, and the ad hoc payment protects the wife in the meantime. If the revision ultimately fails, arrears become payable with adjustments; if it succeeds, the excess paid is adjustable. Interim orders of this kind preserve both sides' positions pending a full hearing.