Sudipa Mahanti Sannigrahi vs Sumanta Sannigrahi
2021 Latest Caselaw 4323 Jhar

                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                                     Cr. Revision No. 1580 of 2017
                                           ....

Sudipa Mahanti Sannigrahi .... Petitioner Versus Sumanta Sannigrahi .... Opp. Party With Cr. Revision No. 1609 of 2017 ....

                Sumanto Sannigrahi                                 ....    Petitioner
                                           Versus
                Sudipa Mahanti Sannigrahi                           .... Opp. Party

                                          ....
                CORAM:           HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR

                For the Petitioner           : Mr. Ajay Kr. Sah, Adv. [in Cr. Rev. No.1580 /2017]
                For the Petitioner           : Mr. A.K.Das, Adv. [in Cr. Rev. No.1609/2017]
                For the Opp. Party           : Mr. Ajay Kr. Sah, Adv. [in Cr. Rev. No.1609 /2017]
                For the Opp. Party           : Mr. Shivam Sahay, Adv. [in Cr. Rev. No.1580 /2017]
                                             ....
08/22.11.2021             Heard learned counsel for the husband and learned counsel for the wife.

Cr. Rev. No. 1580/ 2017 has been filed by the wife for modification of the order to the effect that the maintenance should be granted from the date of application.

Learned counsel for the revisionist has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2021 (2) SCC 324 in the case of Rajneesh Vrs. Neha & Anr.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the husband has assailed the order of maintenance stating that the quantum of maintenance is excessive and she is not entitled for maintenance as she is capable to maintain herself.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of records, it appears that husband has alleged that the wife was working as a Lecturer in A.N. College, Patna and subsequently after marriage, she was working as tutor and she is getting salary of Rs.30,000/- per month. The court below after evaluating the evidence has negated the said submission of the husband.

So far as income of the husband is concerned, the same has been assessed as Rs.41,400/- per month and accordingly, maintenance of Rs.10,000/- has been granted which is 1/4th of the income.

It has been further submitted that the ailing parents are also dependent upon the husband.

It appears that the court has considered the entire material and accordingly quantum of maintenance has been fixed. From perusal of impugned order, it appears that after hearing the parties and perusing the materials available on record, the court below has decided the quantum of maintenance. Accordingly, this Court finds no reason to interfere with quantum of maintenance.

So far as effective date is concerned, it has been mandated by the court in the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajneesh Vrs. Neha & Anr. (supra) that it should be from the date of application. Accordingly, the maintenance order is modified to the extent that it will be effective from the date of filing of application.

With above observation and directions, both the revisions stand disposed of.

Pending I.A. also stands disposed of.

(Rajesh Kumar, J.) Shahid/