Case Law- Partha Sakha Maity v. Bijali Maity
Appearance:-
Appellant: Advocates SP Dalapati, Sourav Mondal, Asumdipta Santra, Soumava Santra, Amarnath Sen Respondent: Advocates Malay Dhar, Shouvik Naskar, Amit Bikram Mahata and Subhangi Panigrahi
The Calcutta High Court has ruled in a landmark decision that wives who leave their marital residences because of arguments or other compelling circumstances are not entitled to reimbursement for legal fees when their husbands file matrimonial actions against them.
“When a wife is a respondent in a matrimonial claim, she is entitled to reimbursement for litigation costs; rejection is the exception. The same guidelines, however, might not apply to litigation expenses in cases where the wife filed the marital lawsuit and is the petitioner. The Bench noted that the objection and asset affidavit may be taken into consideration before making a determination on litigation expenses in such a scenario,” bench observed.
The ruling, rendered on May 3 by Justice Biswaroop Chowdhury’s Single-Judge Bench, emphasizes the necessity of defending women’s financial security and dignity in such circumstances. “As dignity of a women is to be protected it should be ensured that women are not compelled to incur unnecessary expenditure and face hardship,” the Court stated. The Court’s ruling draws attention to the predicament faced by wives who, as a result of marital disputes, wind up in states of mental instability and suffering, forcing them to either seek solace in their parents’ homes or take up jobs in order to make ends meet.
Understanding the financial burden these spouses endure, the Court stressed that although they might be able to sustain themselves to a certain degree, they shouldn’t have to pay for the lawsuits that their husbands have brought against them.
It should be kept in mind that there is occasionally a component of despair and mental instability when a wife leaves the marital home because of arguments and disagreements, as well as other compelling situations. When faced with such a circumstance, the wife must go to her father’s home and either rely on her parents or get employment to support herself if she is not currently employed. It stated that it would not be fair or appropriate to force the wife in question to pay the expenses of the lawsuit until the maintenance application was resolved pendent lite.
The Court explained that maintenance does not include litigation costs; maintenance normally includes things like food, clothes, shelter, and medical necessities. Therefore, it would be unjust to expect wives to finance legal battles initiated by their spouses, particularly when they lack access to joint marital income and have limited means of support.
“A wife may work after leaving the matrimonial home and may be able to support herself to some extent, but since maintenance covers only the costs of food, clothing, shelter, healthcare, and other incidentals for a decent life, she may not be required to pay litigation costs in a suit her husband filed against her rather than one she started. A wife who lives apart from her husband is not eligible to receive the benefits of their joint income; as a result, she must save money for unforeseen expenses when she is on her own. The Court stated that it would be unreasonable to force a wife to pay for litigation expenses in a case her husband filed against her unless she had substantial assets and income, or if she had an advocate from the Legal Service Authority, or unless her income and savings were enormous in comparison to the nominal litigation costs.
The husband’s application, which challenged a lower court’s ruling to give his estranged wife monthly litigation fees of Rs.3,000 to defend her in a matrimonial matter, resulted in the judgment being given.
The husband contended that before allocating litigation costs, the lower court had not taken into account pertinent elements such asset affidavits. In the meantime, the wife challenged the lower court’s ruling to deduct the litigation expenses from the support award made in accordance with Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) Section 125. During its deliberations, the High Court stressed how critical it is to quickly resolve the matter of litigation costs, especially in light of the time and money that women are required to spend on legal representation during divorce disputes. The Bench stressed that wives, as respondents in such cases, have the right to seek litigation costs from the outset to alleviate the financial burden of defending themselves in court.
“When a wife is obliged to appear in court, she must hire an advocate, pay certain fees, and cover any additional expenses. Therefore, when the initial outlay is paid, the respondent wife shouldn’t be forced to spend further money on pursuing her case or forced to wait for the decision on her application for maintenance penden-te lite. A wife has every right to demand litigation fees up front in a matrimonial matter if she is forced to appear in court and respond to her husband’s claim, the Bench stated. Additionally, the Court made it clear that while litigation costs are meant to support the wife’s defense against divorce claims, maintenance is meant to protect her fundamental needs and dignity.
The Court held that the litigation costs ought to be granted from the first day of the application’s motion stage and should not be postponed until a decision has been made after taking objections, affidavits of assets, and supporting documentation into account.
The wife is already receiving maintenance under Section 125 of the CrPC proceedings, and the Bench remarked that the protection of women from Domestic Violence Act procedures prima-facie demonstrate that she does not earn enough money to support herself. Thus, it is not and cannot be appropriate to order the wife to pay for her own legal expenses. However, it stated that the Learned Judge’s adopted principle is not entirely accurate for determining litigation costs.
The Court stressed that the goal of awarding maintenance is to prevent starvation and guarantee the wife a decent life; litigation costs, on the other hand, are awarded in order to provide a way for a wife who is the target of a matrimonial suit to contest the award without difficulty.
“Feedback, clothing, housing, and medical costs are often taken into account when determining maintenance, and the applicant’s learned advocate fees and court costs—discussed earlier—are taken into account when determining litigation costs. Therefore, it is not possible to change the maintenance that was granted using litigation expenses and then order payment,” the statement stated.
The Court lowered the litigation expenses from Rs.3,000 to Rs.2,000 each month in the interest of justice. The Court emphasized that the wife’s award of litigation expenses was upheld by the lower court, but that the costs may not be deducted from her maintenance payments. “The goal of a litigation expenses award is to enable the litigant whose case the order is given to continue the litigation without difficulty.
Therefore, before moving on with the lawsuit, the Court must make sure that the litigation costs are paid, particularly when the respondent wife is the party who will be responsible for paying those costs,” the Bench noted.
As a result, the Court issued the following order: “Partha Sakha Maity, the petitioner, shall pay Bijali Maity in advance by the tenth day of each month. The initial payment is due by May 10th, 2024. If any money is owed or payable under a previous order issued by this Court on April 28, 2022, in C.O. 111 of 2022, it must be paid by May 15, 2024. Regarding Order No. 62, dated 11.03.2022, issued by Learned Additional District Judge 2nd Court Contai in Matrimonial Suit No. 22 of 2018, the said order is modified to the extent that the Learned Court will only move forward with the suit upon payment of the litigation costs as stipulated by this order. It is made plain that the Learned Court will halt the suit’s proceedings until all outstanding litigation expenses have been paid in full each month.
