Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Subrata Dhar vs Aparna Biswas And Another on 16 January, 2015
Author: Ashim Kumar Roy
Bench: Ashim Kumar Roy
1
Form No.J(1)
In the High Court at Calcutta
(Criminal Revisional Jurisdiction)
Appellate Side
Present:
The Hon'ble Justice Ashim Kumar Roy
C.R.R. No. 3663 of 2014
Subrata Dhar
Vs.
Aparna Biswas and another
For the Petitioner : Mr. Sanat Chowdhuri
For the Opposite Party: None
Heard on : 9.12.2014
Judgement on : 16.1.2015
Ashim Kumar Roy, J.
In connection with a maintenance proceeding under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the petitioner was directed to pay maintenance @ 2,500/- per month to the wife opposite party. Aggrieved by such order he moved a criminal revision before the Sessions Court and lost there. Hence this criminal revision. Admittedly, this is a 2nd revision and according to the provision of sub-section 3 of section 397 CrPC, no further revision by the 2 same person shall be entertained either by the High Court or the Sessions Court, if such an application was earlier moved before either of them. Even invoking inherent jurisdiction of the High Court such prohibition cannot be overcome, unless it is shown that the order impugned is unreasonable, perverse, illegal and brings out a situation, which is completely an abuse of process of court.
The learned counsel for the petitioner is unable to satisfy this Court that the order impugned is vitiated by any of such infirmities. Be that as it may in this case neither the marriage nor the paternity of the child is disputed. The petitioner is an employee of the Steel Authority of India and his monthly salary is about Rs. 40,000/-
Now the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the marital tie between the petitioner and the opposite party has been dissolved long back on mutual consent and at that time the wife/opposite party received approximately Rs. 3 lacs from the husband towards the full and final settlement of her future maintenance. He further submitted after dissolution of his marriage with the opposite party, he has remarried and is to maintain his wife and his child, born out of the second wife. Therefore, this order to maintain the first wife would cause immense hardship to him.
On perusal of the records it appears that the marriage was dissolved and the aforesaid amount of money was paid to the petitioner far back in the year 2001 - nearly 14 years ago. A divorced wife is also a wife within the meaning of section 125 CrPC and is entitled to maintenance from her former husband, if it is shown that she is unable to maintain herself and former 3 husband has sufficient means. Merely because wife has received a lump sum amount as her maintenance at the time of divorce from her former husband, that to, 14 years before, is no ground to deny maintenance. It appears 2 courts have given a concurrent finding that the opposite party is unable to maintain herself. This concurrent finding deserves no interference, when from the side of the petitioner no case has been made out that such finding suffers from error of judgment or from non-consideration of material evidence.
Now, coming to the question of quantum of maintenance on the face of the salary of the petitioner Rs. 40,000/- per month, the quantum of maintenance of Rs. 2,500/- per month cannot be said to be excessive.
This criminal revision has no merit and stands dismissed. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order be given to the parties, if applied for, as early as possible.
(Ashim Kumar Roy, J. )