The Single Bench of Justice Shampa Dutt (Paul) of the Calcutta High Court in the case of Shilpi Lenka Vs Susanta Kumar Lenka & Anr held that when a wife blocks a substantial source of income of the husband and then claims an enhancement of maintenance, it amounts to an abuse of the process of law and also against the interest of Justice. It was opined that in addition to the guidelines in the case of Rajnesh v. Neha, another factor to be considered while deciding the quantum of maintenance is whether the Petitioner was driven out from her matrimonial house or deserted her husband without any just reason.
Brief Facts:
The parties were married and have a 9-year-old daughter. As alleged, The Petitioner was subjected to some mental and physical torture after her marriage and the Opposite Party joined the Air Force due to which the parties didn’t live together.
The case of the Petitioner was that the Opposite Party deserted the Petitioner and their daughter.
Thereafter, a petition was filed under Section 125 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking maintenance of Rs 20,000/- for self and Rs. 5000/- for their daughter.
The Learned Magistrate held that the income of the Opposite Party was Rs. 24,494.28/- per month and granted a sum of Rs. 4000/- per month as maintenance to the Petitioner/wife and Rs. 3000/- as maintenance per month to their minor daughter.
Hence, the present revision petition.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
It was contended that Petitioner was not working and has her minor daughter to maintain. Hence, the maintenance should be enhanced in the interest of justice.
Contentions of the Opposite Party:
It was contended that the Petitioner deserted the Opposite Party as she didn’t want to have conjugal relations with him. Further, the pension has been blocked after the filing of the complaint by the Petitioner. Furthermore, it was contended that it would not be possible for the Opposite Party to arrange a separate household for his wife and child who are not willing to live with him. At last, it was submitted that the Opposite Party was ready to live with his wife and child and lead a happy family, however, the Petitioner herself was not willing to do so.
Observations of the Court:
The Hon’ble Court observed that when a wife withholds a substantial portion of the husband's salary and then demands an increase in maintenance, the husband is placed in a very challenging predicament. This is a violation of the law and goes against the interests of justice. In the eyes of the law, both parties are equal, and the Court must make sure that no party is treated unfairly.
It was opined that the Opposite Party cannot be burdened due to the conduct of the Petitioner which resulted in the blocking of the pension.
The Bench noted that the child is now 13 years of age and the maintenance of Rs 3,000/- per month is not sufficient. So, the maintenance of the child was enhanced to Rs 5,000.
The Hon’ble High Court relied upon the judgment titled Rajnesh v. Neha (2021 SCC 324) and noted that in addition to guidelines provided in the said judgment, another factor to be considered while deciding the quantum of maintenance is whether the Petitioner was driven out from her matrimonial house or she deserted her husband without any just reason.
The Decision of the Court:
Based on these aforementioned observations, the order passed by the Learned Magistrate was modified to the extent that the maintenance awarded to the child was enhanced, however, concerning the Petitioner it was the same.
Case Title: Shilpi Lenka Vs Susanta Kumar Lenka & Anr
Coram: Hon’ble Ms. Justice Shampa Dutt (Paul)
Case No: CRR 978 of 2019
Advocates for the Petitioner: Advs. Mr. Kamalesh Ch. Saha, Ms. Payel Mitra, Ms. Mishuk Saha.
Advocates for the Opposite Party: Advs. Mr. Arnab Chatterjee, Mr. Biplab Chatterjee, Mr. Vijay Verma.
Read Judgement @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
