Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Pranab Mazumder vs Mousumi Das on 30 June, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
(Criminal Revisional Jurisdiction)
Appellate Side
Present:
The Hon'ble Justice Rai Chattopadhyay
C.R.R. 1307 of 2021
Pranab Mazumder
Versus
Mousumi Das
For the petitioner : Mr. Jayanta Narayan Chatterjee,
Mr. Debashis Banerjee,
Ms. Moumita Pandit,
Ms. Nandini Chatterjee,
Mr. Nazir Ahmed,
Ms. Jayashree Patra,
Ms. Sreeparna Ghosh,
Mr. S. Koley,
Ms. Chandrima Roy Karmakar,
Ms. Pritha Sinha
Hearing concluded on : 23/06/2022
Judgment on: 30/06/2022
Rai Chattopadhyay, J. :
1) Opposite party/wife took recourse under law for getting maintenance
from the present petitioner by filing her case under Section 125 Cr.p.c
in the court of Judicial Magistrate, 3rd Court at Sealdah, being
registered as M. Case No.154 of 2019. The Ld. Trial Court by dint of
the impugned order dated 01.4.2021 has directed the present
petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.12, 000/- per month towards interim
maintenance to the present opposite party with affect form the date of
the said order till disposal of the case pending before it. The said
order of Ld. Trial Court dated 01.04.2021 is assailed in this criminal
revision case.
2) The petitioner has put forth the grounds that the court has delivered
the order as impugned in absolute non-consideration of the
documents available before it, the court has failed to consider the
necessary points of fact like capacity of the petitioner to pay
maintenance etc. while passing the order as impugned, that the court
has acted with non-application of mind, that the court has exercised
jurisdiction which was not vested in it by law while delivering the
order as impugned. It has further being submitted by referring to the
annexed documents that the petitioner's income is variable, which is
based on the incentives etc. He being an employee of the 'call centre',
by referring to annexed P-3 it is submitted that the take home pay of
the petitioner is only Rs.24, 000/- and odd. In such view of the fact
the petitioner urges that the impugned order not only suffers from
irregularity and impropriety but also is impossible to be executed.
Petitioner has also submitted that during the on going pandemic
period his income has substantially being curtailed.
3) It is found that the opposite party/wife has been served with the copy
of the petition as per the courts direction vide order dated 22.06.2021.
The service appears to be complete and sufficient and a 'good' service.
However, none appears on behalf of the opposite party/wife in this
case when the matter is called on.
4) On careful scrutiny of the impugned order it appears that at the stage
of grant of interim relief in a proceeding under Section 125 Cr.p.c,
when the court acted on the basis of the affidavit of the respective
parties, the court came to the finding that the present petitioner being
a salaried person earns Rs.25,000/- per month with an additional
income of Rs.20, 000/- per month by working as broker. Petitioner's
denial to such fact on affidavit has been ignored by the Ld. Trial Court
but without any sufficient and cogent reasons. I find that petitioner is
not however denying his income from salary at the rate of Rs.24,000/-
and odd per month. Therefore, it is found prudent that at the stage of
adjudication of quantum of maintenance in an interim form, the court
should proceed on the basis of the records available and make
endeavour to adjudicate the dispute finally and conclusively, on
evidence, as expeditiously as possible.
5) Considering the facts and circumstances and on the discussion as
made above I find it proper to set aside the impugned order dated
01.4.2021 so far as the direction of the court - that the present
petitioner is to pay Rs.12,000/- per month as interim
maintenance to the opposite party - is concerned. The said
direction of the Ld. Trial Court is hear by modified to state that the
petitioner in place and stead of Rs.12,000/- per month as directed
shall pay an amount of Rs.8,000/- to the opposite party/wife as
interim maintenance, with effect from the date of this order. The
other directions regarding payment made in the order impugned
remain as those are. Needless to say that failure by the petitioner to
remit such amount of interim maintenance and as per the stipulated
terms shall obviously render right upon the opposite party to take
recourse under the appropriate provision of law.
6) With the observation and direction as above this revision case is
disposed of.
(Rai Chattopadhyay, J.)
