Dismissed¶24

Shri.Bidhan Chandra Dakuya v. Smti. Kanika Baidya and Anr.

Calcutta HC13 Jan 2026CRR/69/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Interim maintenance Section 125 CrPC; Family Court A & N Islands; revision by husband dismissed; maintenance from date of application following (2021) 2 SCC 324 Rahnesh vs. Neha; money sent by husband after marriage not creditable against maintenance; wife with independent income still entitled to maintenance; quantum reasonableness; no divorce decree; restitution of conjugal life; notice of judicial separation Section 10 Hindu Marriage Act 1955; Arindam Mukherjee, J.

What did the court decide?

None to the petitioner; the revisional application fails and the Family Court's interim maintenance order stands, maintenance running from the date of the maintenance application. ¶24

Shri.Bidhan Chandra Dakuya Vs Smti. Kanika Baidya… — Maintenance and Alimony | Calcutta HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None to the petitioner; the revisional application fails and the Family Court's interim maintenance order stands, maintenance running from the date of the maintenance application.

¶24

Issue for consideration

Whether the Family Court's order of interim maintenance under Section 125 CrPC is vitiated by its failure to take into account the money sent by the husband to the wife after marriage. +1 more

¶16

Court's answer

The impugned interim maintenance order contains no inconsistencies and does not suffer from any illegality or material irregularity; there is no reason to interfere with it.

¶22

Ratio / Principle

The quantum of maintenance is not unrealistic or unreasonable, judged by the income of the petitioner vis-à-vis the income of the opposite party wife.

¶22

Key takeaways

Interim maintenance is allowed from the date on which the application for maintenance was made, following the ratio laid down in (2021) 2 SCC 324 (Rahnesh vs. Neha).ratio¶22
Money, if any, sent by the husband to the wife after marriage cannot be taken into account while passing the maintenance order, as it was not paid as maintenance in compliance of any order directing payment of maintenance.ratio¶22
It is not the law that a wife having an independent income is not entitled to maintenance; the parameter is whether the income of the wife is sufficient for her to maintain herself befitting her standard, and no such issue arose here.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal revision (CRR/69/2025, High Court at Calcutta, Circuit Bench at Port Blair) by husband against Family Court, A & N Islands order dated 4th November, 2025 in Misc.Case No.71 of 2022 granting interim maintenance under Section 125 CrPC — dismissed. Marriage admitted; no decree of divorce, so the wife continues to be the wife and the husband must pay maintenance and legal expenses. Money voluntarily sent by the husband after marriage cannot be set off against maintenance since it was not paid pursuant to any maintenance order. A wife with independent income is not disqualified; the test is whether her income suffices to maintain her befitting her standard. Quantum not unrealistic or unreasonable. Interim maintenance runs from the date of the application, following (2021) 2 SCC 324 (Rahnesh vs. Neha). (Arindam Mukherjee, J.)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

¶3

[ CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR ]

¶4

¶5

CRR/69/2025

¶6

Shri Bidhan Chandra Dakuya

¶7

Vs.

¶8

Smt Kanika Baidya and another

¶9

Mr. Ananda Halder … for the petitioner Ms. Preeja Menon … for the respondent no.1

¶10

Mr. Sumit Kuimar Karmakar … for the State

¶11

January 13, 2026 [SR] Item No.1

¶12

This revisional application arises out of an order dated 4^th November, 2025 passed in Misc.Case No.71 of 2022 by the Judge, Family Court, A & N Islands.

¶13

The husband as the petitioner has assailed the order impugned on several grounds. It is the case of the husband that, after getting married to the respondent no.1, he had come back to his work place at Singapore leaving his wife under the care of his father-in-law and mother-in-law in a flat owned y the petitioner on the undertaking that he will bring his wife to Singapore after obtaining the Visa for his wife.

¶14

The petitioner also says that within three months from the marriage, the wife voluntarily went off from the said flat owned by the petitioner wherein she was residing with her parents by taking all belongings lying thereat. It is also the case of the petitioner-husband that, immediately after the marriage, he used to send lump sum amount of money from Singapore regularly to the opposite party-wife for her upkeepment. Despite receiving such money, the opposite party–wife left the petitioner’s flat, after taking her belonging lying thereat.

¶15

¶16

The petitioner-husband also contends that the money which has been sent to his wife-opposite party has not been taken into consideration by the Family Court, while passing the impugned order of interim maintenance under the provisions of Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short CrPC).

¶17

It is the further case of the petitioner-husband that he had filed an application for restitution of conjugal life wherein the opposite party-wife has categorically stated that she does not want to say with the petitioner-husband. On the other hand, all these allegations are disputed by the opposite partywife. It is submitted on behalf of the wife that the petitionerhusband has sent a notice for judicial separation under the provisions of Section 10 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

¶18

The opposite party-wife also contends that a paltry sum of money was sent to her by her husband-petitioner after marriage which was insufficient to maintain herself. It is also the case of the opposite party-wife that she was compelled to take up a job after marriage to maintain herself as her husband was staying at Singapore and was also not paying any money for her up keeping on regular basis.

¶19

Be that as it may, the solemnization of the marriage is admitted. There is no decree of divorce has been passed as yet annulling and/or dissolving the marriage through a competent court of law. The fact remains that the opposite party –wife, in absence of a decree for divorce, continue to remain as the wife of the petitioner when the solemnization of the marriage between them is an admitted fact.

¶20

¶21

The husband, therefore, under the present legal position has to pay the maintenance for maintaining his wife as also legal expenses, if any.

¶22

I, therefore, do not find any inconsistencies in the order impugned. It also does not suffer from any illegality or material irregularity. The quantum of maintenance also does not appear to be an unrealistic or unreasonable going by the income of the petitioner vis-à-vis the income of the opposite party wife. The interim maintenance is allowed from the date on which the application for maintenance was made flowing the ratio laid down in the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in (2021) 2 SCC 324 ( Rahnesh vs. Neha). The money, if any sent by the husband to the wife after marriage cannot also be taken into account while passing the order of maintenance as the same was not paid as maintenance in compliance of any order directing payment of maintenance. It is also not the law that a wife having an independent income is not entitled to maintenance. The parameter is whether the income of the wife is sufficient for the wife to maintain herself befitting to the standard of the wife. There is no such issue in the instant case.

¶23

After going through the records and hearing the parties, I do not find no reason to interfere with the order impugned.

¶24

The revisional application, therefore, fails and accordingly dismissed.

¶25

( Arindam Mukherjee, J. )

Shri.Bidhan Chandra Dakuya v. Smti. Kanika Baidya and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri.Bidhan Chandra Dakuya v. Smti. Kanika Baidya and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shri.Gobinda Biswas Vs the Deputy Commissioner and Anr.

Shri.Tarapada Roy Vs the Superintending Engineer and Anr.

Shri. Subal Roy Vs the Director of Agriculture and Anr.

Shri.Rajib Hossain Vs the Superintending Engineer and Ors.

Jagannath Sil Vs the State

The State Vs Shri. Vivek Ekka