Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Monojit Basu vs Shyamasree Basu (Nee Ghosh) on 3 November, 2022
03.11.2022
SL No.3
Court No.8
(gc)
FAT 522 of 2019
With
CAN 3 of 2021
With
CAN 4 of 2022
With
CAN 5 of 2022
With
CAN 6 of 2022
With
CAN 7 of 2022
Monojit Basu
Vs.
Shyamasree Basu (Nee Ghosh)
Mr. Monojit Basu,
...the Appellant (in person).
Mr. Debasish Roy,
Ms. Sumitra Das,
...for the Respondent.
Re: CAN 7 of 2022
This is an application for clarification and
modification of the order dated 8th August, 2022. On 8th
August, 2022, after taking into consideration the
submission made by Mr. Monojit Basu, we observed that
the submission of Mr. Basu that he would not be
required to file an affidavit and disclose his assets and
liabilities in terms of the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Rajnesh Vs. Neha reported in 2021
(2) SCC 314 could not be accepted. At page 4, first
paragraph of the order dated 8th August, 2022, we
recorded that the wife has filed a separate affidavit
disclosing her (wrongly typed as "his") present income
and other liabilities. We also observed that the appellant
in spite of giving repeated opportunities did not file an
affidavit with regard to the compliance of the order dated
1st August, 2011 till that date. Even today, the appellant
refused to file an affidavit disclosing compliance of the
order dated 1st August, 2011 by which the appellant was
directed to pay a sum of Rs.6,500/- per month towards
the maintenance of the child. Thereafter, we have passed
several orders recording our displeasure with regard to
the conduct of the appellant in not complying with our
order.
This application has been filed with the clear
intention of delaying the hearing of the maintenance
matter and the appeal. This application is, in fact, a
reiteration of the matters that we have decided on that
date and even on subsequent dates and our orders are
quite clear with regard to the maintenance and the
necessity to adjudicate the amount of maintenance that
the appellant is required to pay towards his child. The
wife has not claimed any maintenance for herself. There
is a clear attempt to intentionally and deliberately delay
in complying with our directions. Successive
applications with an attempt to delay the proceeding
should be viewed with impunity and is an act of
contempt. In view of our order dated 8th August, 2022
and the subsequent orders passed in this regard, we do
not find any necessity to clarify or modify our order dated
8th August, 2022.
We feel that the reference to the decision of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajnesh (Supra) is irrelevant
in the context of the order dated 8th August, 2022 where
we directed the appellant to file an affidavit disclosing
compliance of the order dated 1st August, 2011. In the
order, we have clearly stated that we have not finally
adjudicated the application filed by the respondent for
maintenance but we wanted to know whether Mr. Basu
has complied with the earlier direction of the Court. The
order dated 1st August, 2011 was never challenged nor
complied with.
We have reiterated in our earlier orders that Mr.
Basu as the father of the child owes responsibility
towards his child to bear proportionate expenses after
both the parties filed their affidavits of assets and
liabilities. Mr. Basu has deliberately and willfully
neglected to file such affidavit. As on date, a sum of
Rs.2.08 lakhs would be due towards maintenance in
terms of the order dated 1st August, 2011. Mr. Basu has
failed to demonstrate that he has paid the aforesaid sum
or any portion thereof. This payment is completely
unconnected with the issue that we are now required to
decide.
Accordingly, this application is dismissed with costs
assessed at Rs.20,000/- to be paid to the
respondent/wife to be utilized for the maintenance of the
child within two weeks from date. In default, this order
can be executed as a decree of the Court.
The application being CAN 7 of 2022 stands
dismissed.
Still as a last chance, Mr. Basu is directed to file an
affidavit disclosing the amounts he had paid so far in
terms of the order dated 1st August, 2011 within 10 days
from date upon prior service to Ms. Sumitra Das, learned
Advocate-on-record of the respondent/wife.
Re: CAN 4 of 2022
This is an application seeking a direction upon the
wife to file an affidavit of disclosure with regard to CAN 3
of 2021.
This application is completely unmeritorious. The
appellant till date in spite of giving repeated
opportunities evaded filing of affidavit of assets and
liabilities in terms of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Rajnesh (Supra).
The time to file affidavit disclosing the details as
mentioned in Enclosure-I of Rajnesh (Supra) is
peremptorily extended by two weeks from date. In
default, it shall be presumed that the statements made
by the wife in CAN 3 of 2021 are all correct.
Accordingly, the application being CAN 4 of 2022
stands disposed of.
Re: CAN 5 of 2022
This is an application for recalling of our order dated
1st July, 2022. This order has now become infructuous
in view of the subsequent orders.
Accordingly, the application being CAN 5 of 2022
stands dismissed.
Re: CAN 6 of 2022
This is an application for recalling of our order dated
11th July, 2022. This order has now become infructuous
in view of the subsequent orders.
Accordingly, the application being CAN 6 of 2022
stands dismissed.
However, we record that no amount has been paid till
date towards the maintenance of his child.
FAT 522 of 2019
In spite of communication of the order dated 16th
June, 2022, L.C.R has not been sent to this Court.
We direct the learned Additional District Judge, 1st
Court, Sealdah to ensure that the L.C.R is forwarded to
this Court within two weeks form the date of
communication of this order.
The Registrar Administration (L&OM) is directed to
communicated this order to the learned Additional
District Judge, 1st Court, Sealdah as a reminder for
compliance of our order dated 16th June, 2022 by Friday,
i.e. 4th November, 2022.
The matter stands adjourned till 2nd December,
2022.
(Siddhartha Roy Chowdhury, J.) (Soumen Sen, J.)
