Rajat Ghosh vs Ratna Ghosh
2021 Latest Caselaw 1835 Cal

Form No. J(2)

             IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
                     Criminal Revisional Jurisdiction
                              Appellate Side

Present:
The Hon'ble Justice Jay Sengupta

                           CRR 698 of 2021


                              Rajat Ghosh
                                  Vs.
                              Ratna Ghosh


For the Petitioner              : Mr. Suman De
                                : Mr. D. Ghorai




Heard on: 10th March, 2021

Judgment on : 10th March, 2021


       The Court:



            This is an application challenging a judgment and order

       dated 11.12.2019 passed by the learned Additional Chief

       Judicial Magistrate at Chandannagar, Hooghly allowing a

       petition filed under Section 127 of the Code and enhancing the

       monthly maintenance allowance to Rs. 10,000/- per month.

       There is an application for condonation of delay filed along with

       this application.
                                  2




         Considering the explanation provided in the application

under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, I am inclined to condone

the delay in preferring the revision.

         Accordingly, CRAN 1 of 2021 is disposed of.

         Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner

submits as follows. The opposite party filed an application

under Section 125 of the Code praying for maintenance

allowance for herself and her minor son in the year 1993. By

an order dated 03.08.2009, the learned Additional Sessions

Judge, 3rd Court, Hooghly affirmed the judgment and order

dated 05.09.2007 passed by the learned Additional Chief

Judicial Magistrate, Chandannagar, Hooghly in Misc. Case No.

49 of 2006, whereby maintenance allowance payable to the

opposite party/wife and her minor child was enhanced to

Rs.2,000/- each per month. The husband challenged this by

filing     a   revisional   application    before   this   Court.    On

25.11.2014

, this Court was pleased to dismiss the revisional

application. Subsequently, the opposite party/wife filed

another application under Section 127 of the Code being Misc.

Case No. 95 of 2015. The prayer of the wife was allowed and a

sum of Rs.10,000/- was directed to be paid as the enhanced

sum of maintenance allowance under Section 127 of the Code

per month for the wife. No sum was granted for the son

because he had become an adult by them. In the proceeding

under Section 127 of the Code, a suggestion was given to the

wife that her son was working and was earning a handsome

salary. She denied the suggestion. However, in a related

proceeding, the wife admitted her son was earning a good

salary. On the other hand, the petitioner is the employee of the

National Insurance Company Limited at present. But, he is to

retire soon. The petitioner also has other obligations to fulfil. A

sum of Rs. 10,000/- per month is too high for the petitioner to

pay as maintenance allowance for the wife.

I have heard the submissions of the learned counsel

appearing on behalf of the petitioner and have perused the

revision petition.

It appears that the petitioner was getting a salary of Rs.

79,000/- and odd and a net salary of 43,000/- and odd per

month at the time of consideration of the application under

Section 127 of the Code. Such sums might have increased by

now.

It is a bounden duty of a husband to maintain his wife

and quite at the same standard that she would have enjoyed

had she been able to stay at the husband's household.

The petitioner cannot shy away from his obligation to

maintain his wife by giving suggestions that their son, who has

now become a major, might be earning a good salary.

There is no doubt that the petitioner is liable to maintain

his wife.

Considering the income of the petitioner, as discussed in

the impugned order, the apparent standard of living of the

husband and wife and the rising price indices, a sum of Rs.

10,000/- as monthly maintenance allowance cannot be

considered to be an excessive amount to be paid as monthly

maintenance allowance.

I do not find any illegality in the reasoned order passed by

the learned Magistrate.

With these observations, the revisional application is

dismissed.

However, there shall be no order as to costs.

Urgent photostat certified copies of this order may be

delivered to the learned Advocates for the parties, if applied for,

upon compliance of all formalities.

(Jay Sengupta,J.)

ssi