Recently, the Calcutta High Court held that a highly qualified medical professional cannot automatically claim to be “unable to maintain herself” merely by asserting unemployment, especially when her earning capacity and professional background indicate financial independence. The Court partly allowed a criminal revisional application and set aside the ad-interim maintenance awarded to the wife under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as ‘PWDV Act’), while upholding maintenance for the minor daughter. Stressing the mandatory nature of financial disclosure in maintenance proceedings, the Court observed that the beneficial protection under the PWDV Act “cannot be permitted to serve as a mechanism for ‘professional parasitism.’”
Brief facts:
The case stemmed from an ad-interim maintenance order passed under Section 23 of the PWDV Act, directing a husband to pay monthly maintenance to his wife and minor daughter amid matrimonial disputes. Following the separation, the wife initiated multiple proceedings, including a criminal complaint under Sections 498A, 406, 506, 341, and 34 of the IPC read with Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, proceedings under Section 125 of the CrPC, and a domestic violence case. The husband subsequently approached the High Court under Section 482 of the CrPC, challenging the interim maintenance order passed by the Magistrate.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The Petitioner argued that the Magistrate had passed the ad-interim maintenance order in violation of the mandatory disclosure regime laid down in Rajnesh v. Neha, without directing the parties to exchange affidavits of assets and liabilities. The Counsel further contended that the wife, despite being a highly qualified specialist doctor and former Senior Registrar, had concealed her earning capacity while portraying herself as financially dependent. Emphasising the concept of “earning capacity,” the husband argued that the PWDV Act cannot be used as a tool for “professional parasitism” by financially capable spouses, though he did not dispute his obligation to maintain the minor child.
Contentions of the Respondent:
On the other hand, the wife defended the Magistrate’s order and questioned the maintainability of the petition, contending that the husband ought to have availed the statutory remedy under Section 29 of the PWDV Act instead of invoking Section 482 of the CrPC. The Counsel argued that Section 23(2) of the PWDV Act empowers Magistrates to grant urgent ex parte interim relief in cases requiring immediate financial support. The wife further submitted that she had discontinued her medical practice due to alleged matrimonial cruelty and childcare responsibilities, and that maintenance must be assessed on present financial circumstances rather than mere earning potential. Defending the quantum award, she contended that the amount granted was neither excessive nor arbitrary, considering the husband’s income and standard of living.
Observation of the Court:
Justice Uday Kumar observed that “The statutory phrase ‘unable to maintain oneself’ must be strictly scrutinized against the latent earning potential of highly qualified professionals. The law does not permit the beneficial umbrella of the P.W.D.V. Act to be utilized as a subsidy for voluntary professional inertia or to facilitate ‘professional parasitism’ by those possessing specialized, high-demand skills.”
The Court observed that the mandatory disclosure regime laid down by the Apex Court in Rajnesh v. Neha cannot be bypassed while determining maintenance, even at the ad-interim stage. The Bench held that the exchange of Affidavits of Assets and Liabilities is not a mere procedural formality but an essential safeguard to ensure fairness, transparency, and accuracy in maintenance adjudication. According to the Court, the Magistrate committed a “procedural leap” by quantifying maintenance on the very day the Domestic Incident Report was filed without giving the husband an opportunity to place his financial disclosures on record. It further emphasised that while Section 23 of the PWDV Act empowers courts to grant urgent interim relief, such powers cannot be exercised in disregard of the due process framework mandated under Article 141 of the Constitution.
The Bench further observed that the wife’s status as a highly qualified specialist doctor in Critical Care Medicine was a material factor that could not be ignored while considering her entitlement to personal maintenance. The Court held that the expression “unable to maintain herself” cannot be stretched to include a professionally qualified spouse possessing substantial earning capacity but claiming maintenance solely on the basis of temporary unemployment. The Bench emphasised that maintenance law cannot be converted into a mechanism for professional parasitism by financially capable spouses. The Court also noted that the wife had not fully disclosed her specialized qualifications and professional background while seeking interim relief.
The Court, however, drew a clear distinction between the wife’s personal maintenance claim and the independent rights of the minor child. Emphasising the doctrine of parens patriae, the Bench held that a child’s entitlement to maintenance remains absolute and unaffected by disputes concerning the earning capacity or qualifications of either parent. The Court observed that the child, born into a family comprising a CESC engineer and a specialist doctor, was entitled to a standard of living commensurate with that socio-economic status. It further clarified that the child cannot be reduced to a “litigational casualty” amid matrimonial and professional disputes between the parents.
The decision of the Court:
The High Court partly allowed the revisional application and set aside the direction granting ₹12,000 per month as ad-interim maintenance to the wife, remanding the matter to the Magistrate for fresh consideration after obtaining affidavits of assets and liabilities. The Court directed the Magistrate to specifically assess whether the wife’s unemployment was genuine or strategic in light of her qualifications as a specialist doctor. However, the Bench upheld the award of ₹8,000 per month towards maintenance of the minor daughter, reiterating that a father’s obligation to maintain his child remains absolute and independent of matrimonial disputes between the spouses.
Case Title: Jyotirmoy Biswas Vs. State Of West Bengal & Anr.
Case No.: CRR 3578 of 2022
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Uday Kumar
Advocate for the Petitioner: Adv. Pritam Choudhury
Advocate for the Respondent: Adv. Shibaji Kumar Das, Adv. Dipendu Sarkar
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
