Vishnu Saraf Vs Aashita Singhania Nee Saraf - Judgement Analysis

The Calcutta High Court on Friday set aside an order for monthly interim maintenance of Rs 80,000, previously granted by the trial court to a wife.

Justice Suvra Ghosh noted that the wife had already received Rs 32 lakhs from the husband under a memorandum of understanding and was employed herself.

The court held: Given the substantial amount of Rs. 32 lakhs already paid to the opposite party who has her own income, there is little chance of her facing destitution. Therefore, interim maintenance pending the application’s disposal is not warranted.

The husband challenged the order by the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Calcutta from August 30, 2024, which had granted interim maintenance of Rs 80,000 monthly plus Rs 25,000 in costs.

The petitioner’s counsel cited Section 125 CrPC, noting that maintenance applies to wives unable to support themselves, despite husbands having sufficient means.

A memorandum of understanding dated February 15, 2022, required the petitioner to pay Rs 32 lakhs immediately and another Rs 32 lakhs after his exoneration from a criminal case.

The wife admitted receiving Rs 32 lakhs in her assets affidavit. The petitioner argued this payment meant she could maintain herself.

While the wife’s counsel cited court orders allowing parties to contest if mutual settlement failed, the court ultimately sided with the husband’s position.

It was argued that maintenance should be reasonable – neither too extravagant to burden the respondent nor too meager for the wife’s survival. Even with a working wife, the court must assess if her income maintains her previous lifestyle.

The counsel noted the Family Court’s consideration of facts, including the Rs. 32 lakhs payment, in granting interim maintenance.

However, considering both perspectives, the court determined that after receiving substantial funds and having her own income, the wife wasn’t entitled to monthly maintenance.

The order and costs were thus set aside.

Facts of the Case

The petitioner, Vishnu Saraf, is aggrieved by an order of the learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Calcutta, dated August 30, 2024, in Misc. Case No. 62 of 2023. The order directed him to pay interim maintenance of ₹80,000 per month to his wife, the opposite party, Aashita Singhania (née Saraf), from the date of the application filing. Additionally, the petitioner was ordered to pay ₹25,000 as costs. The petitioner contested this order, citing a memorandum of understanding (MoU) between the parties and payments already made under its terms. As per the agreement A memorandum of understanding/settlement was entered into by and between the parties on 15th February, 2022 wherein the petitioner undertook to pay Rs. 32 lakhs to the opposite party and pay further amount of Rs. 32 lakhs after he was exonerated from the criminal case filed against him by the petitioner or the criminal case was closed. According to learned counsel, after payment of Rs. 32 lakhs to the opposite party she refused to withdraw the criminal case pending against the petitioner and the memorandum of understanding was abandoned.

Legal Provisions Involved

• Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC): Pertains to the maintenance of a wife unable to maintain herself, to be provided by her husband if he neglects or refuses to maintain her.
• Judicial Precedents Cited:
  • Rajnesh v. Neha and Another (2021) 2 SCC 324
  • Savitri w/o Govind Singh Rawat v. Govind Singh Rawat (1985) 4 SCC 337
  • Kiran Jyoti Maini v. Anish Pramod Patel (2024 SCC OnLine SC 1724)

Arguments by the Parties

Petitioner (Husband):

1. The MoU, signed in 2022, stipulated a payment of ₹32 lakhs to the wife, followed by another ₹32 lakhs after withdrawal or resolution of the criminal case filed against him. The petitioner contends that the wife failed to fulfill her obligations under the MoU and has already admitted to receiving ₹32 lakhs.
2. He argued that the wife earns approximately ₹22,000 per month, and therefore, cannot claim to be entirely unable to maintain herself.
3. He emphasized that interim maintenance must balance the needs of the wife and the financial capacity of the husband, citing judicial precedents to demonstrate that the Family Court’s order was excessive and unsupported by evidence.

Respondent (Wife):

1. The respondent countered that interim maintenance should consider various factors such as the standard of living during the marriage, reasonable needs, and sacrifices made by the wife for the family.
2. She relied on precedents emphasizing the constitutional goal of maintenance to prevent destitution and maintain the dignity of the wife.
3. She argued that despite her income, it is insufficient to maintain her standard of living as it existed during the marriage, and the petitioner’s financial capacity justified the maintenance amount.

Court’s Observations

1. The Court acknowledged the principles laid down in Rajnesh v. Neha, emphasizing that maintenance should neither be extravagant nor meager, but “reasonable and realistic.”
2. It noted that the payment of ₹32 lakhs by the petitioner had already been admitted by the respondent, and further payments were contingent on the resolution of the criminal case.
3. On the legal aspects of maintenance, the Court observed:
   Keeping in view the handsome amount of ₹32 lakhs that has been paid by the petitioner to the opposite party who also has some income of her own… there is a remote chance of her being exposed to vagrancy and destitution.

Final Judgment

The High Court quashed the interim maintenance order and directed the Family Court to expedite the main proceedings under Section 125 CrPC without granting unnecessary adjournments.

Comments from the Author of this Website

It is a wonderful judgment which highlights an essential aspect of men’s rights, which I have been advocating time and again — preventing misuse of maintenance laws. The Court’s observation that the respondent had sufficient means and an admitted receipt of ₹32 lakhs reinforces the principle that maintenance is not an automatic entitlement. Also, by directing expeditious trial, it would avoid prolonged litigation, which hurts men more than women.

Read the Complete Judgment Here