Sri. Soumendu Ray vs Smt. Manasi Ray & Anr
2022 Latest Caselaw 6775 Cal

21.09.2022 Piya (PA) Sl no.1 Ct no. 30 CRR 3867 of 2019

Sri. Soumendu Ray Vs.

Smt. Manasi Ray & Anr.

Ms. Shahina Haque ..........for the Petitioner.

Mr. P.K. Banerjee Ms. Indrani Nandi .........for the O.P. No. 1.

Mr. P. Bhattacharrya ................for the State.

The revisional application has been preferred against an

order and judgment dated 19.08.2019 passed by the learned

Sessions Judge, Bankura in Criminal Revision No. 39 of 2018

enhancing the monthly maintenance allowance to the extent of

Rs. 8000 and Rs. 6000 per month respectively.

The Criminal Revision no. 39 of 2018 preferred before the

learned Sessions Judge, Bankura was against an order dated

29.09.2018 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 5th

Court, Bankura in Misc. Case no. 56 of 2015 under Section

125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure allowing the said

application against the opposite party husband and granting

the petitioner wife therein and their child minor daughter

maintenance allowance of Rs. 6000 and Rs. 4000 per month

respectively.

The wife/opposite party no. 1 filed an application under

Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying for

maintenance of Rs. 12,000 for herself and Rs. 8000 for her

minor daughter before the Trial Court. The case of the wife O.P.

No. 1 is that she is the legally married wife of the petitioner.

The mother of the petitioner instigated the petitioner and they

together mentally and physically tortured the wife/O.P. no. 1. A

girl child was born to them but the demand of dowry

continued. Unable to meet the said demand she was ousted

along with her minor daughter on 21.04.2015 from her

matrimonial home and since then is living with her daughter in

her paternal house, having no source of income and is totally

dependant upon her father. The minor child is physically

disabled. The petitioner husband works as a Senior Manager

with Telco Company and earns a salary of Rs. 60,000 to 70,000

per month. The petitioner/husband appeared before the

learned Magistrate and finally the Judicial Magistrate, 5th

Court, Bankura allowed the application under Section 125 of

the Cr.P.C. granting a sum of Rs. 6,000 and Rs. 4,000

respectively to the O.P. No. 1 wife and minor daughter.

Being aggrieved, the petitioner/husband preferred the

Criminal Revision no. 39 of 2018 against the said order of the

Magistrate. The learned Sessions Judge by a judgment dated

19th August, 2019 which is under revision here considered the

matter. The petitioner husband in his examination in chief

before the learned Sessions Judge admitted that he works at

I.S.W.P. Company as Senior Manager and not with Telco

Company. No pay slip was filed either before the Trial Court nor

before the Sessions Court and on considering the materials on

record, the evidence adduced by both sides and other materials

on record, the learned Sessions Judge was pleased to allow the

revisional application filed by the wife praying for enhancement

of maintenance amount as granted by the learned Magistrate.

The revision was allowed in part and the learned Sessions

Judge modified the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate, 5th

Court, Bankura and allowed the prayer for enhancement by

granting a sum of Rs. 8,000 and Rs. 6,000 respectively as

maintenance to the petitioner and her daughter.

Against the said order of enhancement, the present

revision has been filed stating that the husband petitioner

herein has filed a matrimonial suit being no. 345 of 2017 before

the Principal Judge, Family Court at Jamshedpur, Jharkhand

under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act against the O.P.

no. 1 praying for a Decree of Divorce and the said suit is still

pending. It is the further case of the petitioner husband that

the O.P. no. 1 wife has also filed a case under Section 23 (2) of

the Protection of Woman from Domestic Violence Act, 2005

being Misc. Case No. 03 of 2018 pending before the Judicial

Magistrate, 4th Court, Bankura. It is the case of the petitioner

husband that the O.P. wife refused to stay with his parents

after marriage at Durgapur and he stayed for work at

Jamshedpur. The O.P. wife then started staying with the

petitioner husband at Jamshedpur and always threatened the

petitioner with false criminal case and divorce. That his wife

O.P. No. 1 always misbehaved with his parents and left for her

parental home and when the petitioner went to bring his wife

and child back he was mercilessly assaulted. The petitioner

husband also filed a suit under Section 9 of Hindu Marriage

Act for restitution of conjugal rights and due to intervention of

family friends the O.P. wife came back to stay with the

petitioner at Jamshedpur. The petitioner husband got his

daughter treated for her disability by taking care of all the

expenses but the relationship between the petitioner and his

wife did not improve and the petitioner filed a case before the

learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur.

There are several cases and counter cases between the

husband and wife in this case. The petitioner's husband's case

is that he earns only Rs. 23,000 to 26,000 per month and that

he being the only son, his parents suffering from age related

diseases are solely dependant on him. It is stated that the O.P.

wife is a graduate and trained in computer courses and is

earning minimum amount of Rs. 15,000 per month as private

tutor.

On perusal of annexure 'N' it is seen that a sum of

around Rs. 23,000 is shown as credited to the account of the

petitioner husband on the second/third of each month. It is the

case of the petitioner that the said amount credited to his

account is his salary and as such the said enhanced amount is

causing serious hardship to run his family which includes his

aged ailing parents.

Admittedly the minor child of the parties is physically

disabled and stays with the wife/mother of the child. The O.P.

wife has to look after herself and her child and from the records

it is seen that it could not be proved that the O.P. wife has a

source of income. Considering all materials and facts and

circumstances and the medical condition of the child, the

learned Sessions Judge rightly allowed the prayer for

enhancement. Considering the amount to which the

maintenance has been enhanced for the mother and child, this

court finds no reason to interfere with the said order. It is well

settled principle of law that an able bodied person has the

responsibility and the liability to look after his family which

includes his parents, wife and children. It is for him to ensure

that his family members are able to lead a decent life style. The

amount of maintenance granted by the learned Sessions Judge

is bare minimum for a person to sustain for a month and as

such the said amount is not being interfered with by this court.

In case the petitioner husband and O.P. wife approach

the appropriate forum in future, they may be directed to file

their affidavit of assets for proper consideration and

adjudication of their respective prayers.

At this stage this court finds no reason to interfere with

the order under revision and accordingly the revision being

CRR 3867 of 2019 is accordingly dismissed on contest.

There will be no order as to costs.

Copy of this order be sent to the learned Trial Court

forthwith for necessary compliance.

Urgent certified website copy of this order, if applied for,

be supplied expeditiously after complying with all necessary

legal formalities.

(Shampa Dutt (Paul), J.)