Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Kamala Das vs Kartick Das on 10 February, 2021
07 THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
NB 10.02.2021 Criminal Revisional Jurisdiction
Before:
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jay Sengupta
C.R.R. 3666 of 2019
Kamala Das
Versus
Kartick Das
For the Petitioner : Mr. Lal Ratan Mondal
Mr. Avik Kumar Das
Mr. Dilip Kumar Sadhu
.....Advocates
For the Opposite Party : Ms. Shabana Hasim
Mr. Majibur Ali Naskar.
Mr. Mobaidur Hossain
.....Advocates
Heard on : 10.02.2021
Judgement on : 10.02.2021
Jay Sengupta, J. :
This is an application challenging a judgment and order dated
30.11.2019 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 5 th Court,
Barrackpore, North 24-Parganas in Misc. Case No.597 of 2018 under
Section 125 of the Code.
Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits as
follows. Interim maintenance was denied to the present petitioner simply on
the ground that the petitioner/wife was purportedly staying in the house of
the opposite party/husband with her major son and was given Rs.3000/-
(Rupees Three Thousand only) as maintenance by the husband. An order of
the Court should not have been denied to the wife simply because she had
accepted that she had been receiving such sums from the husband.
Learned Trial Court did not go into the merits of the matter as regards the
actual requirements of the wife.
Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the husband/opposite
party submits as follows. The petitioner/wife had driven out the opposite
party/husband from his own home. In spite of this, the husband has been
sending Rs.3000/- (Rupees Three Thousand only) as maintenance
allowance to her on his own volition. The husband does not have any
objection if a sum of Rs.3000/- (Rupees Three Thousand only) was awarded
by a Court of law as interim maintenance. In the interest of justice, the
impugned proceeding ought to be expedited.
I have heard the submissions of the learned Counsels appearing
on behalf of the petitioner and the opposite party No. 1 and have perused
the revision petition and the respective affidavits filed by the parties.
The prime grievance of the wife is that no order was passed
granting interim maintenance to her. The actual financial needs have not
been taken into consideration. If the husband stops paying such
maintenance allowance, she will have go back to the Court again praying
for the interim relief.
The petitioner's case is that the opposite party is a former BSF
personnel and was getting Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand only)
per month as pension and used to earn of another sum of Rs.15,000/-
(Rupees Fifteen Thousand only) per month as fixed deposit.
On the other hand, the main grudge of the husband/opposite
party is that he has been denied entry into his own house.
A wife cannot be left to the mercy of a husband as regards
payment of interim maintenance when such wife has already approached a
Court of law with her claims.
It also had to be seen whether payment of Rs. 3000/- per month
could fully absolve the husband from an accusation of neglect.
Be that as it may, in the interest of justice, I find that it will be
appropriate if an interim maintenance is awarded to the petitioner at the rate
of Rs.3000/- only (Rupees Three Thousand only) per month pending hearing
of the main application. However, the learned Trial Court shall conclude the
impugned proceeding as expeditiously as possible without granting any
unnecessary adjournment to any of the parties, preferably within a period of
one year from the next date of hearing.
The Learned Trial Court shall not be swayed by any observation
made in this order.
With these observations, the revisional application is disposed of.
Urgent photostat certified copy of this order may be given to the
parties expeditiously, if applied for.
(Jay Sengupta, J.)
