In Partha Sarathi Guha v. Supriya Guha (CRR 1465 of 2018, neutral citation 2026:CHC-AS:1813, decided on 12 October 2026), Justice Chaitali Chatterjee Das of the Calcutta High Court set aside a Family Court order directing a husband to pay Rs 25,000 per month under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The defect was foundational: the trial court had never determined the husband's actual income or the wife's entitlement, resting the award instead on an adverse inference drawn from his absence. The matter now goes back for a fresh hearing on affidavits of assets and liabilities — with Rs 10,000 per month payable as interim maintenance until it is decided.
A marriage of months, a litigation of decades
The parties married in August 2007 under the Special Marriage Act, 1954, and separated within months. What followed was a familiar procedural sprawl: the husband filed a restitution suit and withdrew it, then a divorce suit that was dismissed for default; the wife lodged a Section 498A IPC complaint in 2013 and filed her Section 125 CrPC maintenance application in 2014, alleging cruelty and dowry demands and pleading that a hand injury had impaired her graphic-design work.
In March 2018, the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Calcutta allowed her application, directing Rs 25,000 per month from the date of the order together with Rs 20,000 in litigation costs. The husband, who claimed to earn about Rs 45,000 per month, had neither completed his cross-examination of the wife nor led evidence of his own income — and the Family Court drew an adverse inference against him under Section 114(g) of the Evidence Act.
What the High Court found missing
On revision, the High Court did not disturb the wife's entitlement to seek maintenance; it faulted the method. The order under challenge contained no determination of the husband's actual income and no assessment of the wife's needs and entitlement — the two findings that Section 125 is built on. The Court invoked the Supreme Court's guidance on financial disclosures in maintenance proceedings (Kiran Jyot Maini) and observed that the provision was never intended, in its words, as a tool of punishment to the husband. A respondent who stays away from the trial takes serious risks, and adverse inferences remain available — but they supplement findings; they do not substitute for them.
What the Family Court did
Fixed Rs 25,000 per month on the strength of an adverse inference, without determining the husband's income or the wife's entitlement on evidence.
What Section 125 requires
A reasoned assessment of the paying spouse's means and the claimant's needs, now anchored in sworn affidavits of assets and liabilities from both sides.
The directions on remand
The maintenance application returns to the trial court to be heard afresh on its merits.
Both parties must file affidavits of assets and liabilities and get the opportunity to lead evidence.
The trial is to be completed promptly, without adjournments.
Rs 10,000 per month is payable by the 7th of each month pending the fresh decision, with adjustment of amounts already paid against the final outcome.
Why the decision matters in practice
For claimants, the lesson is to build the record even when the respondent defaults: plead and prove the respondent's income sources, standard of living and your own needs, so the order can stand on findings rather than inference alone. A maintenance order won by default is only as strong as the findings supporting it, and a remand years later can be a heavy price for a thin record.
For respondents, the decision is emphatically not a licence to boycott proceedings. The husband here did not escape liability — he faces a retrial with interim maintenance running against him, more than a decade after the application was filed. The Court also noted that he had been negligent in his own proceedings and had never sought a stay of the order he was challenging. What the decision does offer a respondent is this: even a party who has defaulted at trial may contest the quantum, because the duty to determine income and entitlement lies on the court itself.
The delay point cuts the other way too. The Court remarked that the wife had waited years before seeking maintenance without a convincing explanation — a factor that did not defeat her claim, but formed part of the overall picture. Maintenance litigation rewards diligence on both sides of the aisle.
This report is based on the judgment of the Calcutta High Court in Partha Sarathi Guha v. Supriya Guha, CRR 1465 of 2018, 2026:CHC-AS:1813, delivered on 12 October 2026. Section 125 CrPC is now carried forward as Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for proceedings instituted under the new code.
Frequently Asked Questions
Why was the maintenance order set aside?
Because the Family Court never determined the husband's actual income or the wife's entitlement, as Section 125 CrPC requires. It had fixed Rs 25,000 per month essentially on an adverse inference, since the husband did not complete cross-examination or lead evidence of his earnings. The High Court held that an adverse inference can fill gaps in proof, but cannot replace the court's duty to assess income and need.
Does the wife lose her maintenance because of the remand?
No. The High Court allowed the revision only in part. The application will be reheard, but the husband must pay Rs 10,000 per month as interim maintenance by the 7th of each month until the fresh decision. Amounts already paid will be adjusted according to the final outcome.
What are affidavits of assets and liabilities?
Sworn financial disclosures that both spouses must file in maintenance proceedings, covering income, assets, liabilities and expenditure, following the Supreme Court's framework in Rajnesh v. Neha as developed in later decisions. On remand, the Calcutta High Court directed both parties to file them so that the maintenance figure rests on disclosed material rather than guesswork.
Does this reasoning apply in Delhi courts?
The provision involved, Section 125 CrPC, now continued as Section 144 of the BNSS, is uniform across India, and Delhi's family courts already operate the affidavit-of-assets discipline rigorously. The decision is a persuasive reminder everywhere that a maintenance figure must trace back to findings on income and need, even where the respondent stays away from the trial.