Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Devashish Bhattacharya vs Smt. Ananya Bhattacharya on 8 September, 2015
Author: Harish Tandon
Bench: Harish Tandon
34 08.09.15 C.O. 3297 of 2015
akd
Devashish Bhattacharya
Vs.
Smt. Ananya Bhattacharya.
--------
Mr. Chittapriya Ghosh.
... for the petitioner.
This revisional application is directed against an order no. 38 dated 12th August, 2015 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court at Durgapur in Miscellaneous Case No. 43 of 2013, by which an application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 is disposed of directing the husband/petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- per month to the wife towards maintenance together with a sum of Rs.25,000/- as litigation cost.
The husband/petitioner filed an application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act praying for restitution of conjugal rights, which gave rise to the registration of Miscellaneous Case No. 43 of 2013.
In the said suit the wife took out an application under Section 24 of the said Act alleging that the husband is employed in a renowned company at Bengaluru and receives monthly salary of Rs.1,00,000/- and more. She claimed maintenance of Rs.20,000/- per month together with one time litigation cost of Rs.25,000/-.
It appears that the wife also initiated a proceeding under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which according to the husband/petitioner was suppressed by her in the said application. It transpired subsequently that in the said proceeding the wife was given a maintenance of Rs.1,500/- per month.
The husband took a defence that he is unemployed and, therefore, has no source of income. Admittedly the husband was working in Dubai and took the wife therein.
It is contended by the husband that because of the allegations of the wife and several proceedings having initiated against him, his service was terminated and he is still in search of a job. On the quantum of maintenance it is submitted that once the learned Magistrate in a proceeding under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure awarded a maintenance of Rs. 1,500/- per month, the learned Additional District Judge taking up an application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act cannot award a sum of Rs.10,000/- per month as alimony pendente lite. Lastly it is submitted that the Trial Court ought to have taken into account the quantum of maintenance awarded by the learned Magistrate in an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
I had an occasion to peruse the evidence adduced by the respective parties. The husband had acquired a Diploma in MBA from an institute at Pune. He was in gainful employment at Dubai and the parties lived together therein.
Let me examine whether the evidence adduced by the husband/petitioner is trustworthy and can be relied. In paragraph 26 of the affidavit as to examination-in-chief the petitioner asserts that apart from the other expenditure he has to bear the expenditure of his younger brother, who is still pursuing his study after the supeannuation of his father from his service. In the cross-examination the petitioner admits that his father was a retired Government employee and is getting pension. He further admits that his brother is employed in a Multinational Company and has a wife.
If the evidence of a litigant is proved to be false, he cannot be said to be trustworthy witness, whose statements are to be relied upon. The evidence of the husband/petitioner appears to be false, as in the cross-examination he admits the employment of his brother in a Multinational Company and, therefore, the earlier statement that he has to bear the expenditure for the study of his brother is absolutely false.
This Court, therefore, cannot rely upon the statements of the petitioner that he is unemployed and have no source of income. He is highly qualified and able-bodied person and at one point of time was in gainful employment abroad. It is unbelievable that a person having such qualification shall remain unemployed and, therefore, his denial in the cross- examination to the question about his present employment does not appear to be truthful.
This Court, therefore, does not find that the quantum of maintenance awarded by the Trial Court on the backdrop of the aforesaid evidence requires any interference.
The revisional application fails.
There will be no order as to costs.
(HARISH TANDON, J.)