Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Kalyan Kumar Kundu vs Smt. Simita Kundu on 13 June, 2016
Author: R.K. Bag
Bench: R.K. Bag
1 S/L.3. C.R.R. No.4164 of 2013 June 13, 2016 Bpg.
In the matter of : Kalyan Kumar Kundu.
...petitioner.
Versus
Smt. Simita Kundu.
...opposite party.
Mr. Sabyasachi Banerjee,
Ms. Sreyashee Biswas.
...for the petitioner.
Mr. Subir Banerjee,
Ms. S. Misra.
...for the opposite party.
The petitioner/husband has challenged the order dated September 25, 2013 passed by learned Judge, Family Court, Calcutta in Miscellaneous Case no.31 of 2012, by which learned Judge of the trial court dismissed the application filed by the petitioner/husband under Section 127 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
It appears from the materials on record that the opposite party/wife instituted Misc. Case no.11 of 2005 praying for maintenance from the petitioner/husband under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. On March 19, 2010 the trial court directed the petitioner/husband to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs.6,000/- per month to the opposite party/wife. The petitioner/husband preferred revisional application against the said order of maintenance before the High Court by filing CRR no.1388 of 2010. On April 6, 2011 learned Single Judge of this Court disposed of CRR no.1388 of 2010 by reducing the amount of maintenance from Rs.6,000/- to Rs.4,500/- per month. Thereafter, the petitioner/husband filed an application under Section 127 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the opposite party/wife praying for reducing the amount of maintenance from Rs.4,500/- to Rs.700/- per month. However, learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Calcutta dismissed the said application 2 filed by the petitioner/husband by an order which is under challenge in this revision.
Mr. Sabyasachi Banerjee, learned counsel for the petitioner/husband contends that learned Judge of the trial court did not take into consideration the fact that the petitioner/husband have to repay loan of Rs.2,70,000/- by selling out the partnership business of medicine and that he is eking out his living by receiving salary of Rs.3,000/- per month for supervising the said medicine business. Mr. Banerjee submits that the petitioner/husband has no financial capacity to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs.4,500/- per month.
Mr. Subir Banerjee, learned counsel representing the opposite party/wife submits that the petitioner/husband incurred the liability of taking loan long back and as such repayment of the loan by selling out partnership business cannot be a ground to reduce the amount of maintenance to the opposite party/wife who incurs an expenditure of more than Rs.5,000/- per month for her medical treatment. According to learned counsel for the opposite party/wife, the amount of maintenance already fixed by learned Single Judge of this Court by way of revision cannot be reduced as there are no change of circumstances.
Having heard learned counsel representing the respective parties and on consideration of the social and financial status of the parties to the proceeding and the age of the petitioner/husband and the age of the opposite party/wife, I am of the view that the petitioner/husband would pay Rs.4,000/- per month to the opposite party/wife with effect from September 25, 2013. Accordingly, the judgment and order passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Calcutta in Misc. Case no.31 of 2012 is modified to the extent that the petitioner/husband is directed to pay maintenance to the opposite party/wife at the rate of Rs.4,000/- per month with effect from September 25, 2013. The petitioner/husband is directed to pay current maintenance of each month to the opposite party/wife within 10th day of next succeeding month and the petitioner/husband is also directed to pay arrears of maintenance to the opposite party/wife within July 31, 2016.
With the above direction, criminal revision is disposed of.
3Let a copy of this order be sent down to the learned court below for favour of information and necessary action.
(R.K. Bag, J.)