In Suman Chanda v. Monami Kundu (C.R.R. 2476 of 2026 with C.R.R. 2477 of 2026, order dated 6 November 2026), a vacation bench of the Calcutta High Court stayed the operation of a Section 125 CrPC maintenance order — Rs 10,000 each per month for the wife and two minor children — together with the execution case and warrant of arrest issued against the husband. But the stay was made expressly conditional: the husband must pay Rs 20,000 per month ad hoc, beginning 30 November 2026, without prejudice to either side. Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya’s order is a model of the modern approach to interim relief in maintenance revisions.
The case in one view
| Case | Suman Chanda v. Monami Kundu, C.R.R. 2476 of 2026 with C.R.R. 2477 of 2026 |
|---|---|
| Court | Calcutta High Court (vacation bench), Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya |
| Order dated | 6 November 2026 |
| Challenge to | Maintenance of Rs 10,000/month each to wife and two minor children from the date of application; Misc. Execution Case No. 16 of 2025 (JM, Third Court, Chandannagar) and warrant of arrest |
| Interim outcome | Execution, warrant and maintenance order stayed till 24 December 2026, conditional on Rs 20,000/month ad hoc payment |
How the matter arose
The magistrate awarded the wife and each of the two minor children Rs 10,000 per month under Section 125 CrPC, payable from the date of the application. Non-payment led to an execution case and, eventually, a warrant of arrest against the husband. He then moved the High Court in revision against both the award and the execution — during court vacation, with the warrant hanging over him.
The grounds pressed
Two grounds stood out. First, service: the husband said he had no notice of the maintenance proceeding at all — if true, the award would be effectively ex parte against a party never brought before the court. Second, pleadings versus proof: the wife’s application stated his income as Rs 50,000 per month, but her oral evidence escalated it to Rs 80,000; the award, he argued, was built on the larger, unpleaded figure, while his actual income is about Rs 43,675. The court framed the question as whether the magistrate “erred in law in relying on evidence beyond the pleadings” (para 6), and found a prima facie case for consideration by the regular bench.
The conditional stay
The stay package: all further proceedings in the execution case and the arrest warrant are stayed until 24 December 2026 or further order; the maintenance order is stayed on the same terms; the revisions go to the regular bench in the December 2026 list. The condition: Rs 20,000 per month ad hoc, first instalment by 30 November 2026, all payments without prejudice to both sides.
The design deserves attention. A bare stay would have left the wife and children with nothing for the months the revision takes; outright refusal would have exposed the husband to arrest on an award he may yet dislodge. The court split the difference at roughly two-thirds of the award — enough to sustain the household, not so much as to pre-judge the revision. This is now the dominant pattern in maintenance revisions across High Courts: interim protection is purchased with interim payment.
The pleadings point to watch
The substantive question — can a maintenance court act on an income figure that appears only in oral evidence, not in the pleadings? — has real practical bite. Maintenance proceedings under Section 125 CrPC (now Section 144 BNSS) are summary in nature, and courts routinely say strict pleading rules do not apply with civil-suit rigour. At the same time, a respondent is entitled to know the case he must meet; a figure that grows by sixty per cent between application and deposition invites exactly the challenge raised here. The regular bench’s answer will matter to every litigant who faces — or presses — an income claim that evolves mid-proceeding.
Practical guidance
- For husbands challenging awards: come with a concrete payment proposal. Courts grant conditional stays, not free ones; an offer near realistic capacity shapes the condition.
- For wives: a revision-stage ad hoc order is money in hand now — insist on a fixed first-payment date and treat default as the trigger to revive execution and the warrant.
- Plead income precisely and amend if better information emerges; the gap between pleaded and deposed figures is the single most exploited seam in maintenance appeals.
- Service objections must be raised at the first opportunity and proved from the record — a bald denial of notice rarely survives scrutiny of the trial court’s order sheets.
Frequently Asked Questions
What orders were under challenge?
Two revisions were filed: one under Sections 397/401 read with 482 CrPC (BNSS Sections 438/442 read with 528) against the maintenance order of Rs 10,000 per month each to the wife and two minor children from the date of application; the other against the execution case before the Judicial Magistrate, Chandannagar and the warrant of arrest issued in it for non-payment.
What were the husband's main grounds?
That he received no notice of the maintenance proceeding, and that the magistrate relied on evidence beyond the pleadings: the wife's application put his income at Rs 50,000 a month, but her oral evidence put it at Rs 80,000 — while he says he actually earns about Rs 43,675. The court framed the prima facie question as whether the magistrate erred in relying on evidence travelling beyond the pleadings.
What exactly did the High Court stay?
All further proceedings in the execution case, the warrant of arrest, and the maintenance order itself — until 24 December 2026 or further order, with the revisions to be heard by the regular bench in the December 2026 list. Every element of the stay is conditional on punctual payment of Rs 20,000 per month ad hoc, the first instalment by 30 November 2026.
Is the ad hoc payment an admission of liability?
No. The order records that all payments are without prejudice to the rights and contentions of both sides. If the husband ultimately succeeds, adjustment or restitution questions can be addressed; if he fails, the payments count towards the award. If he defaults meanwhile, the stay collapses and the warrant revives.