Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Smt. Meghna Nandi (Maiti) vs Sri Asit Nandi & Anr on 13 September, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Criminal Revisional Jurisdiction
APPELLATE SIDE
Present:
The Hon'ble Justice Shampa Dutt (Paul)
CRR 274 of 2020
Smt. Meghna Nandi (Maiti)
Vs.
Sri Asit Nandi & Anr.
For the Petitioner : Mr. Animesh Bhattacharya.
For the opposite party no.1 : Ms. Sreeparna Das,
Mr. Pratik Majumder,
Mr. Abdul Mallick.
For the State : None.
Hearing concluded on : 16.08.2023
Judgment on : 13.09.2023
Shampa Dutt (Paul), J.:
1.
The present revision has been preferred against an order dated
26.11.2019 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 6th Court, Howrah
in Misc. Case No. 192 of 2018 rejecting the petition under Section 127
Cr.P.C. praying for modification of the order under Section 125 Cr.P.C.
granting interim maintenance of Rs.2000/- to the petitioner and
Rs.1000/- each for the two daughters, total Rs.4,000/- per month from
the date of the order.
2. The petitioner's case is that this is an application assailing the
impugned order on the ground that the quantum of interim maintenance
granted upon hearing both the parties is inordinately low and
inappropriate for the petitioner to maintain herself and her two minor
daughters.
3. The petitioner being a housewife and a mother of two minor daughters
was compelled to leave her matrimonial house without any belongings on
05.12.2017 and forced to reside with her parents. The petitioner filed an
application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. registered as Misc. Case No. 192 of
2018 before the Court of Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate at Howrah. A
gist of the application is reproduced below:-
a) The marriage between petitioner/wife and the opposite party
/husband was solemnized according to Hindu rites and
customs on 11th May, 2013 at the residence of the maternal
house of the opposite party/husband i.e. village Post Office
and Police Station Balichak, District-Paschim Medinipur.
b) That as the first issue was a female child the opposite
party/husband with the help of his sister, namely, Nandita
and one maid servant, namely, Kananbala Bar, all of Duillya
(Gholmath), Post Office- Duillya, P.S. Sankrail, District-
Howrah, Pin- 711302, started physical and mental torture
upon the petitioner/wife just after the birth of the first female
child and subsequently within a short period the opposite
party/husband compelled the petitioner to have another child
in anticipation of a male child but ironically the second one
was also a female child. After the second issue, the degree of
torture increased. As a result of such torture the
petitioner/wife went to Jhargram District Hospital on
05.12.2017 for treatment and then to Sankrail Police Station
and lodged a FIR being No.159/18 dated 17.03.2018 u/s
498A/34 of I.P.C. against the opposite party/husband and
was compelled to come to her paternal house at Temple of
Clay, Madhuban More, Post Office- Raghunathpur, Police
Station and District- Jhargram.
c) As per information the opposite party/husband use to draw
monthly income more than Rs.45,000/- (approximately).
d) The opposite party/husband therein contested the case and
filed a show cause and accepted the marriage as genuine as
well as accepted the birth of their two daughters but he denied
his monthly income as 45,000/- per month approximately as
claimed by his wife and averted that his monthly salary is
Rs.20,414/-, which also was mentioned in his show cause,
but no salary slip was produced by him. On being satisfied,
only with the oral submission of the opposite party/husband,
the Learned Trial Court was pleased to direct to make
payment of Rs.2,000/- per month to the petitioner wife and
Rs.1,000/- each to both the daughters by his order dated
31.10.2018. It was further ordered that the order of payment
shall take effect from the date of the said order.
4. It is stated that the husband is an Upper Division Assistant at Writers
Building, Kolkata in the Department of Agriculture.
5. It is further stated that through a communication dated 23.07.2019
signed by Dy. Secy. & S.P.I.O. department of Agriculture, Govt. of West
Bengal, supplied the copy of pay slip of the husband of the petitioner for
the month of June, 2019 from which it appears that the husband of the
petitioner drawn Rs.34,000/- per month but he deliberately submitted
before the trial court that his monthly income is Rs.20,414/- and on that
basis the quantum of interim maintenance of the petitioner and her two
minor daughters were fixed by the trial court by its order dated
31.10.2018.
6. On 26.11.2019 the learned Trial Court rejected the prayer for
enhancement of monthly maintenance.
7. Mr. Animesh Bhattacharya, learned counsel for the petitioner has
submitted that the quantum of maintenance fixed by the learned Trial
Court to the tune of Rs.2,000/- per month for the petitioner and
Rs.1,000/- each for her two minor daughters, is very negligible and in
need of urgent enhancement.
8. It is further submitted that the object is to prevent vagrancy and
destitution. It provides a speedy remedy for the supply of food, clothing
and shelter to the deserted wife. It gives effect to fundamental rights and
natural duties of a man to maintain his wife, children and parents when
they are unable to maintain themselves.
9. Thus it is submitted that the impugned order dated 26.11.2019 is not
tenable in the eye of law as the Learned Trial Judge illegally opined that
the petition under Section 127 Cr.P.C. for enhancement of monthly
maintenance is premature. Hence, the revision.
10. Ms Sreeparna Das, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 1
has submitted that the order under revision is in accordance with law
and as such the revision is liable to be dismissed.
11. On perusal of the materials on record it appears that the parties
were married on 11.05.2013. The petitioner allegedly was tortured and
was compelled to leave her matrimonial home on 05.12.2017 with her
two daughters.
12. The learned Magistrate prima facie accepting the contention of the
opposite party/husband that his monthly salary was rupees Rs.20,414/-
(without production of pay slip), granted interim maintenance of
Rs.4000/- in all.
13. The petitioner then having failed to get the 'information' as to the
payslip of the opposite party, who admittedly is an Upper Division Clerk
(State Govt.) in the Department of Agriculture, by filing a RTI application
with the SPIO, Department of Agriculture and also it's Appellate
Authority, approached the High Court in its writ jurisdiction (W.P. No.
11818(W) of 2019). The Hon'ble Court by its order dated 03.07.2019 gave
relief to the petitioner by quashing the orders of the SPIO and the
Appellate Authority and directed the respondents (State and Ors.) to
provide the salary details of the husband to the petitioner.
14. The salary slip at page 55 and 55A to the revisional application for the
month of June, 2019 shows the grand total of salary per month,
admittedly as Rs. 34,090/-. Net pay as Rs. 22,890/- which by way of
revision/increments has been enhanced in due course.
15. Thus it was in no way logical to grant such a low amount as interim
maintenance for 3 persons and leave the balance for the husband.
16. Of course at the time of final disposal of the case, all factors have to be
taken into consideration by the learned Magistrate, but an amount of
Rs. 4000/- for three persons is just not reasonable. But the order under
challenge in this revision is where the learned Magistrate rejected the
prayer under section 127 Cr.P.C. on the ground of it being premature,
as the Case under section 125 Cr.P.C. was still pending final
disposal.
17. The order under revision thus does not require the interference of this
Court but taking into consideration all factors, the trial Court is to make
all endeavor to dispose of the Misc. Case finally, keeping with the
guidelines of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajnesh vs Neha & Anr.
(2021) 2 SCC 32, within three months from the date of this order.
18. The revisional application being CRR 274 of 2020 is, accordingly
disposed of.
19. All connected applications, if any, stands disposed of.
20. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.
21. Copy of this judgment be sent to the learned Trial Court for necessary
compliance.
22. Urgent certified website copy of this judgment, if applied for, be
supplied expeditiously after complying with all, necessary legal
formalities.
(Shampa Dutt (Paul), J.)
