Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Ravi Kumar Mour vs Sushma Mour on 13 November, 2019
1 64. 13.11.2019
mb In the High Court at Calcutta Civil Revisional Jurisdiction Appellate Side C.O. No. 2859 of 2019 Ravi Kumar Mour Vs. Sushma Mour with C.O. No. 3617 of 2019 Smt. Sushma Mour
-Vs.-
Ravi Kumar Mour @ Sanjay Mr. Kallol Basu, Mr. Bratin Dey, Mr. Basabraj Chakraborty, Mr. K.K. Tewari ...for the petitioner in C.O. 2859 of 2019 & opposite party in C.O. 3617 of 2019 Mr. Devajyoti Barman, Ms. Sanjukta Basu Mallick ...for the petitioner in C.O. 3617 of 2019 & opposite party in C.O. 2859 of 2019 The supplementary affidavit and the affidavit of service filed by the petitioner in C.O. No. 2859 of 2019 in Court today be kept on record.
Two revisional applications are taken up for hearing, since both arise from the same impugned order. 2 C.O. No. 2859 of 2019 has been preferred by the husband for reduction of the amount of alimony granted at the rate of Rs.32,000/- per month and litigation costs of Rs. 1 lakh.
On the other hand, C.O. No. 3617 of 2019 has been filed by the wife for enhancement of the alimony.
Learned counsel for the husband argues that despite the husband having produced salary slips showing that he is a relationship manager in a hotel as well as his income tax returns, all of which indicate that the monthly income of the husband is a little below Rs.20,000/- per month, the trial court granted the exorbitant amount of Rs.32,000/- per month and Rs. 1 lakh as alimony and litigation costs respectively, without considering the documents produced by the husband.
Learned counsel for the husband further submits that the husband produced documents to show that the father, who was the owner of a renowned chain of hotels, disowned the husband from such business. As such, it is argued that the only income of the husband is his salary, which was disclosed fully before the trial court. All such documents were not taken into consideration by the trial court, as per learned counsel for the husband.
Learned counsel for the wife, on the other hand, by placing reliance on an on-line brochure of a chain of hotels, being the 3 Mayur chain of hotels, which is annexed to the wife's revisional application, submits that it has been admitted in the said website brochure that after the demise of the father of the petitioner, the petitioner, along with his other brother and mother, have been the "soul" of the Mayur Group of Hotels. That apart, the wife relies on the cross-examination of the husband in the proceedings under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, where the husband admitted that he owns 1901 shares of Mayur Resort Ltd., 80,000 shares in Mayur Krishna Pvt. Ltd. And is a shareholder of Mayur Hotel, Guwahati, Mayur Krishna Cinema Hall, Guwahati, Assam and Mayur Krishna Market at Guwahati. That apart, the husband admitted to be a shareholder of M/s. Moora & Moora Finance Pvt. Ltd., holding 80,010 shares and has shares under the company in a hotel in Kolkata, namely, Mayur Residency. It was further admitted by the husband in such cross-examination that the husband only showed the yearly income from his salary, but not from the other earnings.
In reply, learned counsel for the husband submits that in the same cross-examination, the husband had stated that he had submitted his resignation to the company on April 01, 2001, that is, prior to his marriage with the present wife.
Upon considering the submissions of the parties and the materials-on-record, it appears that the husband is one of the co- 4 owners and a massive shareholder in not only a renowned chain of hotels by the name of Mayur Residency but also other allied businesses. The story of resignation, which the husband pretended to have tendered, was not backed up by documents since the husband himself admitted that he had no document to produce before the court in connection with such resignation from the company.
Although the wife claimed that she has monthly expenses a little above Rs.41,000/-, the alimony to be ascertained cannot be fixed merely on the regular expenses of the wife but has to be commensurate with the respective status of the parties.
As such, it appears from the materials on record that, although the trial court failed to take into consideration all the documents produced by the parties, the alimony granted was not on the higher, but on the lower side. However, since the trial court did not take into consideration all the documents produced by the respective parties, this Court cannot come to a final conclusion as to the alimony to be directed to be paid by the husband to the wife.
Accordingly, C.O. No. 2859 of 2019 and C.O. No. 3617 of 2019 are disposed of without interfering with the impugned order.
The husband will go on paying an ad hoc amount of Rs.32,000/- per month to the wife for the time being, as well as the litigation costs of Rs.1 lakh, as directed by the trial court. 5
All arrears of alimony and the litigation costs shall be paid by the husband to the wife within three weeks from date, along with current monthly alimony for every month by the 15th of each successive month.
The matter is remanded to the trial court for being heard afresh. The trial court will dispose of the alimony application of the wife afresh, upon taking into consideration all the documents filed by both the sides and come to a reasoned conclusion as to the alimony and litigation costs payable by the husband to the wife, adjusting therefrom the amount already paid by the husband to the wife pursuant to the order of this Court and/or under the order passed under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
The trial court shall conclude the hearing of the alimony application and pass a final order on the same as expeditiously as possible, without granting any unnecessary adjournment to either side, positively by January 15, 2020.
There will be no order as to costs.
Urgent photostat certified copies of this order, if applied for, be made available to the parties upon compliance of necessary formalities.
(Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.)