Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Sri Arnik Chaki vs Smt. Anumita Lahiri on 7 January, 2021
07.01.2021
Ct. 30
Sd./14 CRR 1868 of 2020
Sri Arnik Chaki vs. Smt. Anumita Lahiri
Mr. Anirban Banerjee..For the petitioner.
Mr. Soumaya Ray ..For the opposite party.
In this revisional application the revisionist has
prayed for setting aside the judgment dated 20.03.2019
passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Darjeeling in
Criminal Appeal No. 01 of 2018 arising out of order dated
20.04.2018 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st
Court, Siliguri in Misc. Case No. 138 of 2016 thereby
dismissing the appeal and upholding the order of the
learned Magistrate directing the petitioner to pay
maintenance of Rs. 5,000/- to the opposite party, inter
alia, on the ground that the petitioner is employed in a
private organization and his monthly salary is Rs.
13,640/- p.m. On the other hand, opposite party is an
advocate practicing in the Siliguri Court and earns much
more than the petitioner and therefore, she is not at all
entitled to get any maintenance from the petitioner. It is
also contended that the father of the petitioner is 76
years old and he is suffering from various ailments and is
under constant medical treatment and the petitioner has
to meet the expenses of the doctor attending to his
father. It is also pointed out that the opposite party has
filed Misc. Execution Case no. 22 of 2018 for payment of
Rs. 105000/- and in spite of the extreme hardship the
2
petitioner has paid Rs. 80,000/- to the opposite party as
per direction of the court below.
It is submitted that since the petitioner has paltry
sum of earning, he is unable to pay maintenance to the
opposite party and unable to mitigate his own bread and
butter in such meager amount of income. Accordingly,
the petitioner assailed the judgment impugned in this
revisional application.
On rebuttal my attention is invited to the order
passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate in Misc. Case
No. 138 of 2016 vide order dated 20.04.2018, wherein it
has been observed on perusal of the Domestic Incident
Report by the Protection Officer, Darjeeling that domestic
violence has been reported against the present petitioner
husband and there was no denial to the averments of the
aggrieved person on affidavit that the respondent no. 1
was employed in Philips India Limited and also has his
own business. Rather the respondent no. 1 filed an
evasive affidavit without mentioning anything about his
earlier employment and business, if any, and the date
from which he was so unemployed and he also did not
mention whether during his marriage he was employed
or not.
Accordingly, the learned Magistrate having
considered submissions made on behalf of the accused
person was pleased to direct the respondent no.
1/opposite party petitioner to make payment of Rs.
5,000/- p.m to the aggrieved person toward monetary
relief while disposing of the application u/s. 23(2) of the
Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act 2005.
However, a date was fixed for the evidence in respect of
the proceeding u/s. 12 of the Act.
Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said
order impugned passed by the learned Magistrate, the
present petitioner preferred an appeal being Criminal
Appeal No. 1 of 2018 before the District and Sessions
Judge who has affirmed the judgment so passed by the
learned Magistrate awarding interim monetary relief to
the opposite party wife.
It is well understood from the observation made by
the appellate court below that there was no document
produced by the appellant, the present petitioner to show
his income that he was employed in Philip India Limited.
It is also revealed that one vehicle is owned by the
appellant/respondent. The value of the vehicle was Rs.
7,30,000/- approximately, wherein the principal
amount paid by the appellant/respondent was to the
tune of Rs. 1,63,000/-. It is also gathered from the said
order that the vehicle was purchased on the basis of hire
purchase agreement and already paid a sum of Rs.
8,40,000/- to meet the loan on account of purchase of
the vehicle on hire. Therefore, he must be said to have
substantial earning but no income tax return has been
shown before the courts below.
Now it is submitted by Mr. Banerjee, learned
advocate appearing for the petitioner that there was a
default in making payment on account of the loan of hire
purchase of vehicle and the vehicle has been taken
possession by the banker.
Be that as it may, I am of the opinion that on the
factual aspect as reflected from the orders passed by the
appellate court as well as the trial court, no substantial
contention was made on behalf of the petitioner showing
his income at the time of filing the application u/s. 12 of
the D. V. Act. The amount of monetary relief @ 5,000/-
awarded to the aggrieved person opposite party is quite a
meager amount and that cannot be impugned or
otherwise set aside on the simple plea of the petitioner
that he has only earning of Rs. 13,000/- and odd per
month.
Thus this revisional application being CRR 1868 of
2020 is disposed of affirming the orders of the learned
court below.
( Shivakant Prasad, J. )
