Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Harun Rashid Khan vs The State Of West Bengal & Anr on 16 July, 2021
Form No. J(2)
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CRIMINAL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
Present:
The Hon'ble Justice Jay Sengupta
C.R.R. 1784 of 2019
Harun Rashid Khan
-vs-
The State of West Bengal & Anr.
For the Petitioner : Mr. Tauhid Khan
Heard on : 16.07.2021
Judgment on : 16.07.2021
Jay Sengupta, J.:
This is an application challenging judgment an order dated
27.02.2019
passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Paschim
Medinipur in Criminal Appeal No.1 of 2017, thereby modifying
the order of interim maintenance passed by the learned Judicial
Magistrate, 4th Court at Paschim Medinipur in C.R. Case No.31
of 2015.
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner
husband submits as follows. The petitioner is working as a
Laboratory Assistant, a Group-D staff at the Hijli College. His
net pay is about Rs.12,510/- only as on May, 2019. His job as
an LIC agent has already been terminated. He has his mother to
look after. The private opposite party being the wife of the
petitioner filed an application under the provisions of Protection
of Women from Domestic Violence Act in 2015 claiming some
relief. By an order dated 24.11.2016 passed by the learned trial
court, the petitioner/husband was directed to pay maintenance
allowance on interim basis to the defacto complainant of
Rs.4,000/- per month to the aggrieved person for herself,
Rs.3,000/- per month for each of her two minor children,
Rs.2,000/- per month towards cost of separate residential
accommodation and Rs.1,000/- per month for medical expenses.
Being aggrieved by this order the petitioner preferred an appeal.
By an order dated 27.02.2019 passed by the learned appellate
court in Criminal Appeal no.1 of 2017, the husband was
directed to pay the sum of Rs.3,000/- per month as interim
maintenance for the wife, Rs.2,000/- per month each for her two
child and a sum of Rs.2,000/- per month for residential
accommodation. It is beyond the capacity of the petitioner to pay
such high sums as maintenance allowance for the wife and the
children.
I have heard the submissions of the learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the petitioner and have perused the
revision petition, the orders passed by the learned trial court and
the learned appellate court.
The contentions of the opposite party/wife appear to be
that the petitioner/husband was not only working at the Hijli
College, but was also an agent of the LIC. He had 8 to 10 bighas
of cultivable land and income from other sources to the extent of
Rs.50,000/- per month. She was tortured both physically and
mentally and that is why she also sought separate residential
accommodation.
Be that as it may, the petitioner is a married man having
two minor children to provide for. A sum of Rs.3,000/- per
month comes to about Rs.100/- per day. This cannot be termed
as an excessive sum for the maintenance of a married lady. The
sums granted as interim maintenance for the two children i.e.
Rs.2,000/- each per month also do not appear to be excessive.
This has to cover their fooding, clothing, medical expenses and
education. A sum of Rs.2,000/- for separate residential is
possibly a bare minimum that can be awarded.
Therefore, keeping in view the fact that the petitioner is
working at a Government College and might be having other
sources of income, which has to be finally looked into by the
learned trial court and in view of the rising price indices, I do not
find any reason to interfere with the impugned order.
Accordingly, the revisional application is dismissed.
However, there shall be no order as to costs.
I request the learned trial court to conclude the proceeding
as expeditiously as possible without granting any unnecessary
adjournment to any of the parties, preferably within a period of
six months from the next date of hearing.
With these observations, the revisional application is
disposed of.
Urgent photostat certified copy of the order, if applied for,
be given to the parties, upon usual undertakings.
(Jay Sengupta, J.)
05/Ct.32
rkd
