Case Analysis: Amar Kanta Sen v. Sovana Sen (1960) | Maintenance under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955

The case of Amar Kanta Sen v. Sovana Sen holds considerable importance in Indian family law, especially concerning maintenance claims under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

Case Title: Amar Kanta Sen v. Sovana Sen

Court: Calcutta High Court

Citation: AIR 1960 CAL.438

Judge: Justice S. Dutta

Date of Judgment: December 18th, 1959

Facts

1. In 1959, the marriage between the appellant and respondent was dissolved.
   
2. Sovana Sen filed an application for maintenance from her husband, Amar Kanta Sen, in the high court of Calcutta.
3. She claimed to belong to a respectable family and to have been married to a respectable person. She claimed to be in poor health and unable to support herself financially.
4. She stated that her monthly expenses were around Rs. 315/- and she had heavy debts of Rs. 4000/-.
5. The husband, Amar Kanta Sen, countered the application, claiming he received a net salary of Rs. 879.90 and that she had committed adultery with Purnendu Roy and two other gentlemen. He also denied that her monthly expenses amounted to Rs. 315/- or that she had incurred a debt of Rs. 4000/-.
6. Sovana Sen denied the allegations made by her husband and demanded an additional monthly amount of Rs. 350/- or whichever the court deemed appropriate.
7. She claimed to have lived a decent life with her husband and had no financial support after her divorce.
8. Amar Kanta Sen countered, stating that his monthly salary was around Rs. 879/- and that Sovana had committed adultery with multiple individuals. He also claimed that Sovana had been selected as Assistant Producer (Music) at All India Radio, New Delhi.

Issues

• Whether the wife was entitled to receive maintenance if she was earning her own salary?
  
• Whether the husband was obligated to provide maintenance to the wife after she was found guilty of adultery?
• Whether the wife have any right to maintenance under Hindu law?

Laws Applied

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955

Indian Divorce Act, 1869

Judgment

The High Court of Calcutta referred cases like Ashcraft v. Ashcraft (1902) and extracted from the decision whereby it was mentioned that the court has discretion to award maintenance if the wife is proven to be entirely without means of support and unable to earn.

Referring to Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, the court emphasised:

Any court with jurisdiction under this Act may, upon request by either spouse, order the respondent to pay maintenance and support to the applicant while they remain unmarried. The amount, whether a lump sum or periodic payments, should be determined based on the respondent's income, the applicant's income and property, and the conduct of both parties, not exceeding the applicant's lifetime.

The Court said that there is little difference between English Law and Hindu Law in terms of maintenance. According to Principles of Hindu Law by D. F. Mulla (12th Edition), an unchaste wife could not be entitled to maintenance. However, if she turns away from sinful practice, her husband may be compelled to supply the necessities of life as acknowledged, for bare subsistence.

The Judge opined that the wife would be entitled to a bare subsistence allowance or starving allowance if she had no means to support herself.

In this case, therefore, the wife was awarded a bare subsistence allowance for the period from 10-7-1959 to 17-9-1959 as the appellant had no income. Therefore, she was entitled to an allowance of Rs. 79.33. After that, she started earning sufficient income at an All India Radio, New Delhi. She concealed this fact to gain an unfair advantage. Therefore, she could not claim any allowance from 17-9-1959.