Gauhati High Court
Udit Mukerjee vs Anindita Bhattacharjee And Anr on 12 January, 2021
Page No.# 1/3
GAHC010231262018
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : Crl.Rev.P./411/2018
UDIT MUKERJEE
S/O SRI TRIDIV KANTI MUKERJEE, R/O 107, KAMDHENU APARTMENTS,
SECTOR 9, PLOT NO. 51, ROHINI, NEW DELHI, PIN-110085
VERSUS
ANINDITA BHATTACHARJEE AND ANR.
W/O SRI UDIT MUKHERJEE, D/O SRI ASHISH BHATTACHARJEE, C/O ANIL
SAHA, HOUSE NO. 2, BLOCK C, BHASKARNAGAR, PO VINOVANAGAR,
GUWAHATI, PIN-781018, DIST. KAMRUP(M), ASSAM
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. M U MAHMUD
Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MIR ALFAZ ALI
ORDER
Date : 12-01-2021
Heard Mr. M.U. Mahmud, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. V.K. Chopra,
learned counsel for the respondent.
This revision petition is directed against the order dated 03.03.2018 passed by
the learned Principal Judge, Family Court-II, Kamrup in FC (Crl.) 574/2017 granting
Page No.# 2/3
interim maintenance of Rs. 4000/- to the respondent and her two minor children.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent wife has filed an
application under the Protection of Woman from Domestic Violence Act, wherein also
an interim maintenance was granted to the tune of Rs. 6000/- in favour of the
respondent. Referring to a recent judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajnesh Vs.
Neha & Anr. (Crl. Appeal No. 730/2020) , Mr. Mahmud submits that in case of
overlapping jurisdiction under different statute, the parties are under obligation to
inform the court about any maintenance already granted in other proceeding so that
the court, which is proceeding to pass any maintenance subsequently can take into
account the earlier award or the court can also modify the award of maintenance in
case of necessity in view of the maintenance granted in the earlier proceeding.
In the instant case, a perusal of the impugned order would show that there was
an admission on the part of the respondent regarding granting of interim maintenance
of Rs. 6000/- in the proceeding under the protection of Woman (from Domestic
Violence) Act in short (D.V. Act). While passing the impugned order, learned trial court
has taken into account the amount of maintenance granted in the earlier proceeding
under the D.V. Act and thereby, granted an interim maintenance of Rs. 4000/- in favour
of three persons, i.e. the respondent and her two children. Therefore, from the
impugned order, it cannot said that the learned trial court has passed the impugned
order being oblivious of the earlier order of maintenance granted in the proceeding
under the D.V. Act. The object of direction of the Apex Court in Rajnesh Vs. Neha
(supra) as indicated above was to make the court aware of any earlier maintenance so
that in the subsequent proceeding court can pass just and reasonable award keeping in
view the earlier maintenance granted in another proceeding.
In view of the above fact situation, the present impugned order passed under
Section 125 CrPC cannot be said to have sufferance from any impropriety or irregularity
in view of overlapping jurisdiction, inasmuch as, while passing the impugned order
granting interim maintenance, learned trial court took into account the interim
maintenance granted in the proceeding under the D.V. Act.
It has also been submitted at the bar that in the criminal proceeding under the
D.V. Act, the learned Judicial Magistrate granted an interim maintenance of Rs. 6000/-
in favour of the respondent wife. The present revision petitioner, who was the second
Page No.# 3/3
party in the proceeding under D.V. Act, filed an application for modification/reduction of
the quantum of interim maintenance, which was turned down by the learned trial
court. In the meantime, an application was filed by the respondent/wife praying before
the learned trial court for a direction to the parties to file affidavits disclosing their
assets and liabilities so as to enable the court to fix just and reasonable amount of
maintenance, which was rejected by the learned trial court. The said order was carried
forward to the learned Sessions Judge in a revision petition, which also stood rejected
and ultimately, a criminal petition was filed before this court. This court while disposing
of the said criminal petition directed the learned trial court to consider of the
application filed by the respondent/wife as regards filing of affidavits, afresh in terms of
the order passed by the Apex Court in Rajnesh Vs. Neha (supra) and the same is
now pending before the learned trial court.
In view of the above development in both the cases, this court is of the view
that the impugned order granting interim maintenance of Rs. 4000/- to the
respondent/wife and her two children does not warrant any interference. Accordingly,
this revision petition is disposed of. However, the parties are given liberty to agitate
their grievance, if any, before the learned trial court in the proceeding under D.V. Act
regarding the quantum of interim maintenance, in the light of the judgment of the
Apex Court in Rajnesh Vs. Neha (supra).
The revision petition is disposed of accordingly.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
