Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Rajnarayan Bhattacharjee vs Rekha Bhattacharjee on 26 August, 2015
1 26.08.2015
.
Item No.22 C.O. 3127 of 2015 Rajnarayan Bhattacharjee Vs. Rekha Bhattacharjee.
Mr. Probal Kumar Mukherjee, Mr. Falguni Banerjee, Mr. Debanjan Chatterjee.
... for the petitioner.
The challenge is made to order no. 53 dated 17th July, 2015 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Second Court at Asansol in Miscellaneous Case No. 1 of 2015, by which an application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 is disposed of, directing the petitioner to pay a monthly maintenance of Rs. 23,000/- to the wife and Rs. 10,000/- to the minor daughter.
Mr. Probal Kumar Mukherjee, learned senior advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner, submits that his client has no objection to the quantum awarded for maintenance of the daughter, but the challenge is restricted to the amount provided to the wife, which is too excessive, exorbitant and not in commensurate with the net income of the husband.
Admittedly, the petitioner is working in Eastern Coalfields Limited and is drawing a gross salary of Rs. 1,32,546/- per month. The salary slip annexed to this revisional application reveals that a sum of Rs. 25,000/- is deducted on account of Income Tax, Rs. 11,000/- and odd on account of Provident Fund and Rs. 10,000/- and above towards Voluntary Provident Fund apart from the club and other charges.
2The Provident Fund accrues to the benefit of an employee, who gets the accumulated amount with interest at the time of superannuation. There is also voluntary deduction allowed by the petitioner from the gross salary and it is contended before this Court that the net amount, which the petitioner takes home, is nearly Rs. 80,000/- per month.
It is to be reminded that while ascertaining the quantum of maintenance, the Court shall allow the statutory deductions from the salary and not other deductions, which are either voluntary in nature or shall accrue to the assets of the employee.
After deducting the statutory amount, this Court finds that the amount, which he takes home, is nearly Rs. 1,00,000/-, though the Trial Court held that the net amount is Rs. 91,000/- and odd. There is no straight jacket formula for ascertaining the quantum of maintenance. It depends upon the various factors and, therefore, varies from case to case.
Mr. Mukherjee appears to have been inspired from the averments made in the application and the prayer made therein to contend that in absence of any specific averments relating to the expenditure quantifying the maintenance, the Court ought not to have awarded a sum of Rs. 23,000/- per month to the wife. According to him, in absence of any better particulars in the application, the Court ought not to have awarded a sum of Rs. 23,000/- to the wife, which exceeds 1/3rd of the net income.
I had an occasion to peruse the deposition of the wife where she categorically stated that she has to incur a sum of Rs. 6,200/- to Rs. 6,500/- per quarter towards the educational fees of the daughter and also have to bear the rent and other expenditures for her sustenance. She categorically stated that she is passing her days on selling the ornaments as the husband is very much irregular in providing the amount even to the daughter. She 3 claimed Rs. 20,000/- to Rs. 25,000/- per month for her maintenance, which includes the rent and the educational expenditure of the daughter.
The Court while awarding the maintenance and ascertaining the quantum thereof, must bear in mind the status of the parties, their position in the society, the comfort and luxury, which the parties were enjoying during conjugal period, as the wife is not supposed to live a life, which is not befitting the status of the husband.
It further appears that the father of the husband/petitioner was also an employee of the Eastern Coalfields Limited and have since retired. According to the petitioner, the father and mother are dependent upon him and he has to bear their expenditures. The father of the petitioner has also deposed in the matter and categorically state that he is not getting any pension. In answer to a question put in the cross-examination whether he receives a substantial amount on account of an interest from his savings, he initially denied but subsequently disclosed a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- to have been invested, which fetches a sum of Rs. 1,000/- as interest voluntarily.
The evidence on the part of the petitioner is not convincing as both the witness were shacking at the time of answering the questions put in the cross-examination.
This Court further finds from the salary slip that an amount of Rs. 2,000/- and odd is deducted from the salary of the husband towards the pension that he would get after attaining superannuation.
Section 106 of the Evidence Act mandates the person to prove the facts, which is his special knowledge. The petitioner appears to have reservation in providing maintenance to the wife, as the challenge is restricted to the quantum awarded to her. The 4 love and affection is eminent when the quantum awarded to the minor daughter has been accepted by the petitioner, as no challenge is thrown to it.
Considering the present price index and the status of the husband, more particularly, when the wife has to discharge her onus of paying the rent and the other expenditures, Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act does not provide any formula for granting the maintenance to either of the spouse as it has to be determined on the basis of the income of the husband or the wife and the amount, which appears to the Court to be reasonable, for sustenance.
The Trial Court, in my view, has not acted illegally and with material irregularity in awarding a sum of Rs. 23,000/- per month to the wife for her maintenance.
This Court, therefore, does not find any ground warranting interference with the impugned order.
The revisional application is, thus, dismissed. Since the petitioner intended to challenge the impugned order before this Court, the direction passed in the impugned order for payment of the maintenance could not be complied with and Mr. Mukherjee prays for extension of time.
Time to pay the maintenance indicated in the impugned order is extended for a period of three weeks from date.
There shall, however, be no order as to costs.
ab (Harish Tandon, J.)