Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Prabir Dhibar vs The State Of West Bengal & Anr on 1 March, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Criminal Revisional Jurisdiction
Before:
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jay Sengupta
C.R.R. 1386 of 2014
CRAN 1 of 2019 (Old No. CRAN 1621 of 2019)
Prabir Dhibar
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Anr.
For the Petitioner : Mr. Soumik Ganguli,
Mr. Sourat Nandy.
For the Opposite Party : Mr. Sharanya Chatterjee.
Heard on : 01.03.2021
Judgement on : 01.03.2021
Jay Sengupta, J. :
This is an application challenging a judgment and order dated 21 st
January, 2014 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bankura in
Criminal Revision No.44 of 2012, thereby affirming the order dated 22.12.2011
passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 7 th Court, Bankura in Misc. Case No.51
of 2010/TR No.30 of 2010 under Section 125 of the Code.
By a judgment and order dated 22.12.2011 passed in Misc. Case No.
51 of 2010/TR No.30 of 2010, the learned Trial Court directed the
petitioner/husband to pay maintenance allowance at the rate of Rs.3000/- (Rupees
Three Thousand only) per month to the wife/opposite party no.2. Being aggrieved,
the petitioner preferred a revisional application being Criminal Revision No.44 of
2012 before the learned Sessions Court. After hearing the parties, the learned
revisional Court was pleased to dismiss the revisional application and affirm the
order passed by the learned Trial Court. A second revisional application was filed
by the petitioner before this Court. By an order dated 25.04.2014, the matter was
directed to come up for hearing under the heading 'Contested Application' and an
interim order was granted directing the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.1500/-
(Rupees Fifteen Hundred only) to the wife/opposite party. The wife/opposite party
no.2 filed an application for vacating of the interim order passed earlier.
Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits as
follows. The petitioner is a day labourer working in a Sponge Iron factory. He was
earning of about Rs.3000/- (Rupees Three Thousand only) per month as per his
written objection filed in 2010. It would not be possible for the petitioner to pay
such high sum as awarded by the learned Trial Court as maintenance allowance.
The wife deserted the husband on her own volition. Despite the petitioner's efforts,
the wife did not come back. The petitioner has been regularly paying maintenance
allowance to the wife.
Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party/wife submits
as follows. It is the case of the opposite party no.2 that as on 2010, the petitioner
was earning Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) as a day labourer in a
factory. The petitioner was also earning another sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten
Thousand only) from his cable TV business. The wife was subjected to mental
and physical torture and thereafter driven out from the matrimonial home. She has
no independent income of her own. Even after the sum of maintenance was
scaled down to Rs.1500/- (Rupees Fifteen Hundred only) by this Court as an
interim measure, the petitioner did not pay such sum to the wife as maintenance
allowance.
I have heard the submissions of the learned Counsels appearing on
behalf of the parties and have perused the revision petition and the vacating
application filed by the opposite party no.2.
It appears that the marriage has not been disputed.
The petitioner has failed to disclose any document regarding his actual
income. However, he was an able-bodied man and had admitted earning at least
Rs.3000/- (Rupees Three Thousand only) per month from his job as a day
labourer in a Sponge Iron factory in 2010.
In these times of high price indices, Rs.3000/- (Rupees Three
Thousand only) per month is possibly the least that can be awarded as
maintenance allowance to a married woman under Section 125 of the Code. It
amounts only to about Rupees Hundred per day.
In view of the above and considering the facts that the marriage is
admitted and the petitioner is an able-bodied man doing some job or, at least,
capable of doing some job, I do not think a sum less that Rs.3000/- (Rupees Three
Thousand only) per month should be awarded as maintenance allowance in favour
of the wife.
The learned Sessions Judge had quite rightly affirmed the reasoned
order that was passed by the learned original Court.
In view of the above, I do not find any merit in this application.
Accordingly, the revisional application is dismissed and the connected
application also stands disposed of.
There shall, however, be no order as to costs.
Urgent photostat certified copy of this order may be supplied to the
parties expeditiously, if applied for.
(Jay Sengupta, J.)
Sl.61/NB
