Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Shuvrangshu Roy vs Smt. Dipannita Roy (Guha) on 16 July, 2013
Author: Prasenjit Mandal
Bench: Prasenjit Mandal
Form No.J(2) IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CIVIL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE C.O. No. 190 of 2013 Present :
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Prasenjit Mandal Shuvrangshu Roy.
Versus Smt. Dipannita Roy (Guha).
For the petitioner: Mr. Debasish Roy, Mr. Malay Dhar, Mr. Biswajit Sarkar.
For the opposite party: Mr. Tapas Ghosh, Mr. Tanmoy Chowdhury.
Heard On: 10.07.2013.
Judgement On: July 16, 2013.
Prasenjit Mandal, J.: Challenge is to the Order dated December 17, 2012 passed by the learned Additional District Jude, Special Court, Asansol in Misc. Case No.12 of 2010 arising out of the Matrimonial Suit No.66 of 2010 thereby disposing of an application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act.
The husband/petitioner herein instituted the aforesaid suit for dissolution of marriage under Sections 13(1)(ia) and 13(1)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 before the learned District Judge, Alipore and in that suit, the wife is contesting. She filed an application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act which was disposed of by the impugned order directing the husband to pay alimony pendente lite at the rate of Rs.6,000/- per month from the date of filing of the case and a sum of Rs.20,000/- as litigation costs. Being aggrieved, the husband has preferred this application.
Now, the question is whether the impugned order should be sustained.
Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties and on going through the materials on record, I find that the parties have adduced evidence in support of their respective contentions in respect of the application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act. According to the materials on record, the marriage between the parties according to Hindu rights and customs is an admitted fact.
Admittedly, the wife is residing at the house of her father and she has no income of her own. On the other hand, the wife has contended that the husband earns Rs.20,000/- per month as Commercial Manager in Eastern India Yellow Pages. Beside that he has additional income of Rs.5,000/- per month from his immovable property. Against such statement of the wife, the husband has contended that he gets a salary of Rs.3,500/- per month and he has to look after his old and ailing mother. His mother requires constant medical treatment and so, the alimony and the litigation costs has been awarded in excess of the capacity of the husband and so, the said alimony needs to be set aside.
As stated above, parties have adduced evidence and on the basis of the evidence, the learned Trial Judge has arrived at the conclusion. It is not the fact that the findings of the learned Trial Judge are without any evidence. The wife lived in the house of the husband for a considerable period from 2002 to 2006 and so, it is expected that she is aware of the income of the husband.
Moreover, the learned Trial Judge has also observed that the husband is an able-bodied person and it is his obligation to maintain his wife also and that the wife is entitled to get the expenses to maintain the similar standard of living as his husband is doing. The contention of the husband that he earns Rs.3,500/- per month as Manager of the said concern appears to be absurd totally. The previous statement of an employee of the husband's concern in another proceeding is not admissible in the instant case. So some guess work as to the income of the husband is permissible in such circumstances. Anyway, on knowing fully well that he has to discharge his obligations towards his wife, the husband had married the wife and so, now he cannot evade his obligations by taking the plea that he has nominal income.
This is not at all an appeal but a revision to see whether the Court below has dealt with the matter within the jurisdiction vested in him and if there is any perversity in the matter.
For that reasons stated above, I am of the view that the statement of the husband relating to his income cannot be accepted and he is bound to pay the alimony for the wife pendente lite and the litigation costs also which cannot be stated to be excessive at all as observed by the learned Trial Judge in his well written judgment.
Accordingly, I am of the view that there is no scope of interference with the impugned order. The impugned order should be sustained.
The application is, therefore, dismissed. Considering the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs.
Urgent xerox certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the learned Advocates for the parties on their usual undertaking.
(Prasenjit Mandal, J.)