Case Analysis: Shipli Lenkar v. Susanta Kumar Lenkar & Anr, (2023) | Seeking Enhanced Maintenance After Blocking Husband's Pension is Abuse of Law

The Case Analysis: Shipli Lenkar v. Susanta Kumar Lenkar & Anr, (2023) emphasizes the decision of the Calcutta High Court, which dismissed a wife’s plea for enhanced maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).  The Court points out that the enhancement of maintenance after blocking a substantial source of the husband’s income is plainly against the interests of justice and an abuse of the process of law.

Court: High Court of Calcutta

Citation: Criminal Revisional Jurisdiction CRR 978 of 2019

Date of Judgment: 30th January 2023

Bench: The Hon’ble Justice Shampa Dutt (Paul)

Facts of the Case 

Susanta Kumar Lenkar (the respondent), and Shilpi Lenkar (the petitioner) were married on August 9, 2006. Their daughter is currently around nine years old. The petitioner claims that shortly after getting married, she was subjected to physical and mental abuse. The other party joined the Air Force, leaving the petitioner and their daughter all by themselves. After a few days of marriage, it is claimed that the parties did not live together because the respondent left to join the Air Force. As stated by the petitioner, the respondent left her and their daughter and started living alone on May 15, 2017. According to the claim, the opposing party receives a pension of Rs. 18000/- during his time in the Air Force and currently makes an additional Rs. 40,000/- working for a bank.

The petitioner had filed an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,  praying for maintenance of Rs. 20,000/- for herself and Rs. 5000/- for their daughter before the Learned Judicial Magistrate, 2nd Court on 12th February 2019. The trial Court ordered that a husband is bound to maintain his wife and family as per Section 125 of Cr.P.C. The magistrate finds that the respondent's income was a total of Rs. 24,494.28 per month after all deductions. Thus, the court awarded an amount of Rs. 4000 to the petitioner/wife as maintenance and Rs. 3000 to their young daughter as maintenance each month.

After the submissions of both parties, the court found that the respondent's pension had been blocked because of the complaint filed by the petitioner. It caused a decreased amount of income received by the opposite party. The extent and amount of maintenance to be granted in favour of the petitioner will also be proportionately affected.

The Court observed that:-

“the petitioner has taken necessary steps to ensure that the pension from the Air Force is released in favour of the opposite party so that the prayer for enhancement of maintenance for the petitioner can be considered. The opposite party cannot be burdened, when it is the conduct of the petitioner herself because of whom the pension from the Air Force has been blocked.”

Issues Involved

• Whether the plea filed by the petitioner before the Calcutta High Court for enhanced maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) is valid or not?
  

Law Applied

The Calcutta HC referred to the Supreme Court Judgment of Rajnesh v. Neha for deciding the criteria for determining the quantum of maintenance. The mentioned case has lifted up the issue of maintenance as a whole. It stated that the purpose of providing interim or permanent alimony is to prevent the dependent spouse from falling into poverty or becoming a vagrant as a result of the breakdown of the marriage, not to penalise the other spouse. The factors that can be considered are

• reasonable needs of the wife and dependent children;
• whether the applicant is educated and professionally qualified;
• whether the applicant has any independent source of income;
• whether the income is sufficient to enable her to maintain the same standard of living as she was accustomed to in her matrimonial home;
• whether the applicant was employed prior to her marriage;
• whether she was working during the subsistence of the marriage;
• whether the wife was required to sacrifice her employment opportunities for nurturing the family, child-rearing, and looking after adult members of the family; reasonable costs of litigation for a non-working wife.

Arguments from both the Parties 

Arguments from the Petitioner's Side

Mr Kamalesh Saha Advocate from the petitioner's side, has submitted that the petitioner is unemployed and is responsible for supporting her daughter, who is still a minor. The sum granted should be increased because it is insufficient to cover the costs of the petitioner and her daughter's maintenance and allow them to live up to the status of the opposing party.

Arguments from the Respondent's Side

Because she did not want to spend her married life with the other party, the petitioner departed her marital residence on her own. The petitioner made a complaint with the Air Force Authorities, and the pension of the respondent from the Indian Air Force has been suspended. The opposing party's current income is so low that he somehow manages to support himself as well as his other obligations, which include taking care of his parents and other family members. He finds it challenging to keep up a separate establishment for his wife and child because they do not want to live with him.

The Rationale of the Case 

• A truly challenging position for the husband arises when a wife cuts off a sizable source of income and then demands an increase in maintenance.
  
• This is obviously a violation of the law and acts against the interests of justice. In the eyes of the law, both parties are equal, and the court must ensure that no party is treated unfairly.
• The Learned Magistrate also observed that at the time of final disposal of the case, whether the petitioner was driven out from her matrimonial home or had she deserted her husband without any just and sufficient reasons.

Judgment/Decision

The Calcutta HC dismisses the plea of the petitioner on 30th January 2023. The Court observed that the pension of Susanta Kumar was blocked because of the complaint filed by the petitioner with the Air Force Authorities. As a result, a huge cutback in income received by Susanta Kumar and, thus, the amount of maintenance that is to be granted to the petitioner must also be proportionately affected.

The Ruling of the High Court 

• The amount granted to the petitioner remains unchanged subject to a final adjudication by the trial court because the petitioner has left her matrimonial home without just and sufficient reasons. For the quantum of maintenance, the trial court was directed to count on Rajnesh v. Neha Supreme Court Judgment.
• As the Court observed that the amount of Rs 3,000 per month is not sufficient for the minor daughter, it amends the amount to Rs 5,000 per month granted for the maintenance of the daughter.

Justice Shampa Dutt stated that-

“This is a case where a wife blocks a substantial source of income of the husband and then claims an enhancement of maintenance, a really difficult situation for the husband. This clearly amounts to an abuse of process of law and is also against the interest of Justice. Both the parties are equal in the eye of law and the court has to ensure that none of the parties suffer injustice.”

Important Links

Law Library: Notes and Study Material for LLB, LLM, Judiciary, and Entrance Exams

Law Aspirants: Ultimate Test Prep Destination