Calcutta High Court Orders Cricketer Mohammad Shami To Pay Rs 4 Lakh Per Month | Maintenance Awarded To Estranged Wife And Daughter | Equalisation Of Wealth Denied
Safiya Malik
The High Court of Calcutta Single Bench of Justice Dr. Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee held that the interim monetary relief granted by the lower court was inadequate and revised the monthly maintenance payable to the petitioner and her minor daughter. The Court directed that the opposite party pay a total of Rs. 4,00,000 per month—Rs. 1,50,000 to the petitioner and Rs. 2,50,000 to the child—with effect from the date of the interim application. It further instructed the Trial Court to dispose of the main application under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, expeditiously and without being influenced by any interim observations.
The petitioner and opposite party were married on 7th April 2014 according to Islamic rituals. They had a daughter on 17th July 2015. The petitioner also had two daughters from a previous marriage, all residing with her. She filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, alleging mental and physical abuse by the opposite party and his family members.
An FIR was registered as Jadavpur P.S. Case No. 82 of 2018 under Sections 498A, 328, 307, 376, 325, and 34 of the IPC. Subsequently, the petitioner sought interim monetary relief amounting to Rs. 7,00,000 per month for herself and Rs. 3,00,000 for her minor daughter.
The opposite party filed written objections. The Magistrate rejected the interim monetary relief to the petitioner and granted Rs. 80,000 per month for the child. The petitioner appealed under Section 29 of the PWDV Act in Criminal Appeal No. 203 of 2018. The Sessions Court modified the Magistrate's order on 18th January 2023, granting Rs. 50,000 per month to the petitioner and Rs. 80,000 to her child.
The petitioner challenged this order. Her counsel argued that despite the opposite party’s high declared income (Rs. 7,19,54,010 for FY 2020-21), the relief granted was meagre. The petitioner declared an income of Rs. 16,000 per month against expenses exceeding Rs. 6,00,000, asserting her financial destitution.
The opposite party opposed the plea, alleging suppression of facts by the petitioner, including her business income and properties. He cited her refusal to comply with a directive to disclose complete financial details. He contended that she was leading a financially secure life through modelling and acting and was not entitled to further relief.
Both parties filed affidavits of assets and liabilities. The petitioner challenged the approach of the lower court as mechanical and insufficiently attentive to the standard of living during the marriage and her current financial obligations.
"It is not clear what was the basis of fixing of interim maintenance amount awarded to the tune of Rs. 50,000/- and 80,000/- in the context of affidavit of assets and liabilities and other materials placed on record in support of income."
"The opposite party/husband’s income, financial disclosure and earnings established that he is in a position to pay a higher amount."
"The petitioner wife who has remained un-married and is living independently with the child is entitled to a levelled maintenance that she enjoyed during her continuance of marriage and which reasonably secure her future as well as future of the child."
The Court observed that the petitioner's claim of financial distress and responsibility for her daughters required careful consideration. It took note of the income tax return of the opposite party reflecting Rs. 7.19 crore income for 2020-21.
It also acknowledged the opposing contention that the petitioner had filed a parallel application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. but declined to file required financial disclosures. The Court noted the inconsistencies in the petitioner's affidavits in both proceedings.
"Even if the quantum of monetary relief is calculated at the rate of 1/3rd of the net income of the opposite party no.2 the monthly amount goes much higher which becomes payable."
"While it is true that the question of awarding an excessive amount of monetary relief to make an attempt for equalization of wealth with the husband/opposite party does not arise... awarding of very low amount of monetary relief also cannot be accepted which does not match with the standard of living of the parties."
The Court relied on precedent including Rinku Baheti vs Sandesh Sharda, Bhagwan Dutt vs Kamla Devi, and Rajnesh vs Neha, asserting that monetary relief must be reasonable, fair, and consistent with the standard of living the wife was accustomed to during marriage.
"There is no quarrel with the proposition of law that equalization of wealth with the other party cannot be the basis for determination of interim monetary relief amount..."
"The law of maintenance is aimed at empowering the destitute and achieving social justice and dignity of the individual."
The Court dismissed allegations of the petitioner leading an adulterous life or remarriage due to lack of prima facie evidence.
The Court held that the interim monetary relief fixed by the court below required revision. It directed as follows:
"In my considered opinion a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- per month to the petitioner no.1(wife) and Rs. 2,50,000/- to her daughter would be just fair and reasonable to ensure financial stability for both the petitioners, till disposal of the main application."
"Such amount is to be paid by the opposite party/husband from the date of filing of the application under section 23 of the PWDV Act, as decided by the Apex Court in Rajnish Vs. Neha (supra)."
"However as regards petitioner’s child the husband /opposite party No.2 will always be at liberty to voluntarily assist her with educational and/or other reasonable expenses, over and above the aforesaid amount."
The Court disposed of CRR 656 of 2023 and instructed the Trial Court to dispose of the main application under Section 12 of the PWDV Act as early as possible.
"It is also made clear that while disposing the application filed under section 12 of the PWDV Act finally, court below will come to a finding on the basis of evidence and documents that would be placed before him and shall not be influenced by any observation made herein."
Advocates Representing the Parties:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Imtiaz Ahmed, Ms. Ghazala Firdaus, Mr. Sk. Saidullah, Mr. Mithun Mondal, Mr. Md. Arsalan
For the Respondents: Mr. Sandipan Ganguly, Mr. Sompriya Chowdhury, Mr. B. Kumar, Mr. I. Basu
Case Title: Hasin Jahan vs The State of West Bengal & Anr.
Case Number: CRR 656 of 2023
Bench: Justice Dr. Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee
