As dignity of a woman is to be protected, it should be ensured that women are not compelled to incur unnecessary expenditure and face hardships, the Court underlined.
The recent ruling by the Calcutta High Court in the case of Partha Sakha Maity vs Bijali Maity underscores that a wife who departs from her matrimonial home, whether voluntarily or due to coercion, should not bear the financial burden of litigation when her husband files a matrimonial suit against her.
Justice Biswaroop Chowdhury, serving as the single judge, emphasized in his May 3rd decree that it is incumbent upon courts to allocate ‘litigation costs’ to the wife from the outset of legal proceedings initiated by the husband in a matrimonial context.
The court observed that instances where a wife vacates the matrimonial residence due to disputes, conflicts, or compelling circumstances often entail emotional distress and mental instability. Consequently, she may find herself seeking refuge at her parental home, relying on her parents for sustenance, or seeking employment to secure her livelihood if she is not already employed.
“In such a situation it would not be just and proper to compel the wife concerned to bear the litigation costs till application for maintenance pendent lite is decided. A wife may earn her livelihood after leaving matrimonial home, and she may be able to maintain herself to some extent but as maintenance includes food clothing, shelter, medical expenses and other incidental expenses for a decent living but the same does not include litigation costs, she may not be compelled to pay litigation costs in a suit not instituted by her but against her by her husband,” the judge held.
The judge added that although a wife may manage to set aside some funds for unforeseen circumstances after covering expenses for essentials like food, clothing, and shelter, this does not justify holding her responsible for covering the litigation costs in a matrimonial suit brought forth by her husband.
Top of Form
“A wife while living separately is unable to get the benefits of joint income of her husband and herself thus when she has to depend on her own earning she is required to make some savings for future contingencies. Thus it would be unreasonable to compel the wife to incur the litigation costs in a case instituted against her by her husband unless the income and savings are exorbitant compared to the nominal litigation costs or that she has large number of assets and huge income from the same or when she is provided an Advocate from Legal Service Authority,” the Court underscored.
Emphasizing the importance of safeguarding the dignity of women and ensuring they are not burdened with unnecessary expenses and hardships, the Court highlighted the need for protective measures.
The ruling stemmed from an application filed by a husband contesting a lower court’s decision. This decision mandated him to provide his estranged wife with a monthly sum of ₹3,000 as litigation costs, enabling her to defend herself in the matrimonial suit initiated by the husband.
While the husband contested the order, citing the lower court’s failure to consider his affidavit of assets and other technical aspects before imposing litigation costs, the wife also challenged the order. Specifically, she objected to the lower court’s adjustment of litigation costs within the maintenance amount specified under section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC).
In its ruling, the High Court acknowledged that determining the amount of maintenance during legal proceedings requires a thorough examination of the parties’ income statements and asset affidavits. This process necessitates time and scheduling of multiple court dates, the Court noted.
Recognizing that the wife would also incur legal expenses during this period, including advocate fees, the Court reasoned that postponing the decision on awarding costs until the verdict on the maintenance application is delivered would be impractical.
“A wife when required to appear in Court has to engage an Advocate and pay some fees along with incidental costs for appearance in Court. Thus, when initial expenditure is incurred, wife should not be compelled to incur further expenditure in conducting her case, and should not be made to wait till application for maintenance pendente lite is decided,” the Court said.Top of Form
The Court further stressed that a wife, who is forced to appear in court and respond to her husband’s allegations in a matrimonial case, possesses the full entitlement to seek litigation costs from the outset.
“The litigation costs should be awarded on the very first day of moving the application at the motion stage, and should not be deferred till decision on considering objections and affidavit of assets and evidence,” the judge held.
If, after reviewing the written objections, asset affidavit, and evidence, the Court determines that the wife’s income is excessively high, she possesses numerous assets generating significant revenue, or if there are highly extraordinary circumstances warranting the denial of litigation costs, the Court retains the authority to amend, adjust, or retract the initially granted litigation costs at the preliminary motion stage, the judge clarified.
“Thus, granting litigation costs to wife when she is respondent in a matrimonial suit is the rule and rejection is exception. However the same principles may not apply with regard to litigation costs when wife has instituted the matrimonial suit and is the petitioner in the said suit,” the Court stated.Top of Form
Moreover, it asserted that the trial court made a mistake by offsetting the maintenance amount received by the respondent wife against the litigation costs determined by the court.
“The purpose of awarding maintenance is to protect the wife from starvation and to ensure that she lives decent life, and litigation costs are not taken into consideration while awarding maintenance. The litigation costs are awarded so that a wife against whom matrimonial suit is instituted can contest the same without hardship. While awarding maintenance, the factors namely food, clothing, shelter medical expenses are normally taken into consideration, and while awarding litigation costs, fees of the Advocate of the applicant and court fees are taken into consideration,” the High Court explained.Top of Form
Considering the aforementioned points, the High Court affirmed the lower court’s decision regarding litigation costs but specified that these costs should not be offset against the maintenance amount.
