Latest JudgementCode of Criminal Procedure, 1973

Rinki Chakraborty Nee Das v. State of West Bengal & Anr, 2025

This ruling aligns with progressive interpretations of Section 125 CrPC, recognizing that economic abuse and neglect can occur even if the wife is partially self-reliant.

Calcutta High Court·17 September 2025
Rinki Chakraborty Nee Das v. State of West Bengal & Anr, 2025
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Share:

Judgement Details

Court

Calcutta High Court

Date of Decision

17 September 2025

Judges

Justice Dr. Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee

Citation

Acts / Provisions

Section 13(1)(ia), Hindu Marriage Act, 1955

Section 25, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955

Facts of the Case

  • The petitioner-wife married the opposite party-husband under the Special Marriage Act.

  • She alleged that after marriage, she was not allowed to reside permanently at her matrimonial home and was later denied entry and threatened for mutual divorce.

  • The wife filed a petition under Section 125 CrPC seeking maintenance of ₹10,000/month and interim relief.

  • The trial court granted ₹4,000/month interim maintenance, but later rejected the main maintenance plea on grounds that:

    • The wife earns ₹12,000/month, and

    • The husband is unemployed.

Issues

  1. Whether an able-bodied unemployed husband can deny maintenance on the ground of financial incapacity?

  2. Whether a working wife with modest income is barred from claiming maintenance under Section 125 CrPC?

  3. Whether the standard of living and lifestyle the wife was accustomed to should be considered in determining entitlement to maintenance?

Held

  • The husband was directed to pay ₹4,000 per month as maintenance to the wife.

  • The trial court’s denial of maintenance was held to be erroneous as it failed to account for the legal responsibilities of the husband and the wife’s standard of living.

Analysis

  • This ruling aligns with progressive interpretations of Section 125 CrPC, recognizing that economic abuse and neglect can occur even if the wife is partially self-reliant.

  • It affirms that voluntary unemployment by an able-bodied man cannot be used to evade legal responsibility.

  • The Court emphasized equality of status and dignity, rejecting the notion that a woman must live in hardship if she can barely survive on her own.

  • The judgment also reflects judicial sensitivity toward women forced out of their matrimonial homes, who are often blamed or denied maintenance based on narrow interpretations of income.