The case of Rinki Chakraborty Nee Das v. State of West Bengal & Anr. is a significant ruling of the Calcutta High Court delivered on 12 September 2025 by Justice Dr. Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee. It revisits and clarifies the principles underlying Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.), now re-enacted as Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023—a welfare-oriented provision aimed at preventing destitution and vagrancy by ensuring that wives, children, and parents are not left without financial support.
The judgment assumes importance as it corrects an erroneous approach taken by the Family Court, which had rejected the petitioner-wife’s claim for maintenance despite the husband being an able-bodied man. The Court not only reaffirmed the constitutional and statutory duty of a husband to maintain his wife but also strongly rejected speculative reasoning that maintenance orders should depend upon the “probability of execution.”
This decision underscores the principle that mere unemployment or deliberate joblessness cannot be used as a shield by husbands to avoid legal obligations, and that a wife’s meagre earnings cannot absolve the husband of his duty to maintain her in accordance with his social and economic status.
Factual Background
Marriage and Breakdown
- The petitioner, Rinki Chakraborty (née Das), married the opposite party (her husband) on 4 August 2012 under the Special Marriage Act, 1954.
- The couple initially returned to their paternal homes after registration, with an assurance that a social marriage ceremony and cohabitation at the matrimonial home would follow.
- Although the marriage was consummated during occasional stays, the husband and his family repeatedly avoided taking the petitioner to her matrimonial home.
Conflict and Exclusion
- In August 2013, the husband expressed that his parents were unwilling to accept the petitioner into their Kolkata home.
- The petitioner, along with her parents, insisted on cohabitation, but she was pressurised for mutual divorce.
- On 16 August 2013, the petitioner lodged a complaint after being denied entry into her matrimonial home and refused to return her stridhan articles.
Petitioner’s Financial Struggles
- With no permanent residence at her matrimonial home, the petitioner sought maintenance of ₹10,000 per month under Section 125 Cr.P.C. in Misc. Case No. 62 of 2013, along with interim maintenance.
Procedural History
Interim Maintenance Orders
- On 6 January 2015, the Family Court granted ₹4,000 per month as interim maintenance and ₹5,000 towards litigation cost.
- The husband challenged this order before the Calcutta High Court in CRR 530 of 2015, which only reduced the amount to ₹3,000 per month.
- The Supreme Court dismissed the husband’s Special Leave Petition (SLP No. 5868 of 2015), affirming the interim maintenance.
Parallel Proceedings
- Domestic Violence Act, 2005: In Misc. Case No. 1 of 2013, the Magistrate awarded ₹1,500 maintenance and ₹3,000 towards alternative accommodation. Appeals against this were dismissed up to 2018.
- Matrimonial Suit (No. 110 of 2013): Husband sought nullity of marriage on the ground of “wilful refusal to consummate,” but the suit was dismissed. The petitioner, as respondent, was granted ₹4,000 alimony pendente lite and ₹10,000 litigation cost by the Family Court on 25 June 2015.
- Criminal proceedings under Sections 498A/506/406/114 IPC ended in acquittal of the husband.
Family Court’s Final Order (8 June 2023)
The Family Court rejected the petitioner’s claim for permanent maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C., reasoning that:
- Petitioner earned ₹12,000 per month, hence capable of maintaining herself.
- The husband has been unemployed since 2014, dependent on his parents, and unable to pay.
- Directing a “jobless person without income” to pay maintenance would serve no practical purpose, as such orders are rarely executed.
This prompted the petitioner to file the present Criminal Revision Application (CRR 2556 of 2023) before the Calcutta High Court.
Issues
The case primarily raised the following questions:
- Whether the Family Court was justified in rejecting maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. on the ground that the wife had some earnings and the husband was unemployed.
- Whether an able-bodied husband can evade liability by remaining unemployed or by claiming dependency on parents.
- Whether the Family Court erred in interpreting Section 125 Cr.P.C. by focusing on the “probability of execution” rather than the object of the provision.
Arguments
Petitioner-Wife’s Contentions
- She is the legally married wife, deserted without justification.
- Her income of ₹12,000 per month is insufficient to sustain the lifestyle and status she would have enjoyed in her matrimonial home.
- Section 125 Cr.P.C. is a measure of social justice; her husband, being able-bodied, cannot shirk his obligation by pleading unemployment.
- Family Court misapplied the law, ignored binding precedents, and adopted a sympathetic approach towards the husband.
Husband’s Contentions
- The marriage was merely registered, with no social acceptance or consummation.
- The petitioner never resided with him in the matrimonial home.
- She is a working woman drawing a “substantial salary,” hence self-sufficient.
- He has been unemployed since 2014 due to termination and has no means to maintain her.
- Reliance placed on Kusum Bhatia v. Sagar Sethi (SLP No. 16051 of 2017), where maintenance was denied to a sufficiently earning wife.
High Court’s Observations
Justice Mukherjee undertook a detailed examination of Section 125 Cr.P.C., reiterating the four essential requirements:
- Petitioner is the wife of the respondent.
- She is unable to maintain herself.
- Husband has sufficient means.
- Husband has refused or neglected to maintain her.
1. Marital Relationship and Status
- The marriage was undisputed, and the husband’s nullity suit had already been dismissed.
- Therefore, the petitioner’s legal status as wife stood established.
2. Wife’s Earnings Do Not Bar Maintenance
- The Court held that mere earnings by the wife do not automatically disentitle her to maintenance.
- The test is whether her income is sufficient to maintain herself in the same lifestyle and social strata as that of her husband.
- Her income of ₹12,000 per month was held inadequate, given the higher economic status of the husband’s family.
3. Husband’s Plea of Unemployment Rejected
- The Court clarified that “sufficient means” includes the capacity to earn.
- An able-bodied husband cannot remain willfully unemployed and use it as a defence.
- His termination from service due to his own fault (non-performance/irregularity) could not absolve him of responsibility.
4. Error in Family Court’s Reasoning
The Family Court erred by:
- Treating the husband as a “poor penniless person.”
- Speculating that maintenance orders are seldom executed.
- Advising the wife to “maintain herself within her income.”
Such reasoning was held to be perverse, speculative, and contrary to the object of Section 125 Cr.P.C.
5. Social Justice Perspective
- Section 125 Cr.P.C. is rooted in Article 15(3) and Article 39 of the Constitution.
- Its object is not punitive but to prevent destitution and ensure that women live with dignity.
- Citing Chander Prakash Bodraj v. Shila Rani (AIR 1968 Delhi 174), the Court held that an able-bodied man is presumed capable of earning to support his wife.
Decision
- The High Court set aside the Family Court’s order dated 8 June 2023.
- The husband was directed to pay ₹4,000 per month as maintenance from the date of the application, i.e., 2013.
- Arrears were to be cleared in 12 equal instalments by 31 October 2026.
- Failure to comply would entitle the petitioner-wife to execute the order before the appropriate court.
Significance of the Judgment
- Reaffirmation of the Able-Bodied Principle: An able-bodied husband cannot evade responsibility by staying unemployed.
- Lifestyle and Social Strata Test: Maintenance is to be determined with reference to the standard of living of the husband’s family, not the bare survival of the wife.
- Correcting Judicial Missteps: The ruling corrected a dangerous precedent where courts might speculate on execution or sympathise with a defaulting husband.
- Constitutional Backing: Reinforced that Section 125 Cr.P.C. is in furtherance of constitutional mandates ensuring social justice and gender equality.
Conclusion
Calcutta High Court’s judgment in Rinki Chakraborty Nee Das v. State of West Bengal & Anr. stands as a robust reaffirmation of women’s rights under Section 125 Cr.P.C. It underscores that maintenance is not charity but a legal right, and husbands cannot avoid liability by remaining unemployed or by exploiting their wives’ meagre earnings.
By setting aside the Family Court’s arbitrary and speculative order, the High Court restored the true spirit of Section 125—to prevent destitution and enable women to live with dignity. The case reinforces the principle that the obligation to maintain a wife is a blend of moral, legal, and social duty, firmly entrenched in India’s constitutional ethos.
Important Link
Law Library: Notes and Study Material for LLB, LLM, Judiciary, and Entrance Exams