Ranjan Kumar Saha vs Smt. Piyali Saha Nee Das
2021 Latest Caselaw 2282 Cal

Form No. J(2)

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Criminal Revisional Jurisdiction Appellate Side

Present:

The Hon'ble Justice Jay Sengupta

CRR 951 of 2019

RANJAN KUMAR SAHA Vs.

                         SMT. PIYALI SAHA NEE DAS



For the Petitioner        :      Mr. Soubhik Mitter

Heard on:                 :      23rd MARCH 2021



Judgment on :             :      23rd MARCH 2021


The Court:

This is an application challenging an order dated 26.12.2018 passed by the

learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Court, Barasat, North 24 Parganas in M.Case No.

390 of 2017 under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure thereby

directing the petitioner husband to pay Rs. 5,000/- as monthly interim

maintenance allowance to the wife / opposite party.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits as follows.

The petitioner is a Homeopath who does not earns much. This would be evident

from his income tax return a copy of which has been annexed with the revision

petition. The opposite party / wife left her matrimonial home of her own accord and

did not return despite several requests. A G.D. Entry was lodged to that effect.

I have heard the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner and

have perused the revision petition.

The case of the opposite party / wife appears to be that after marriage she

was tortured physically and mentally by the petitioner for dowry. Finally, she was

driven out from her matrimonial home. According to the wife, the petitioner is an

able bodied person and in fact, a renowned doctor of the locality who was earning

about Rs.2 lakhs per month.

An Income Tax return is not an infallible touchstone for assessing one's

real income, or for that matter, one's earning capacity. At the stage of interim

maintenance, the contentions raised by the wife cannot be brushed aside.

The order granting interim maintenance passed by the learned Trial Court

is a reasoned one and I do not find any justification to interfere with the same.

Accordingly, the revisional application is dismissed.

However, in the interest of justice, the learned Trial Court is requested 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.

Learned Trial Court shall not be swayed any observation made by this

Court in deciding the revisional application.

With these observation, the revisional application is disposed of.

Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, is to be given to

the parties upon usual undertakings.

(Jay Sengupta, J.)

SB