Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Dr. Tanmoy Mukhopadhyay vs Smt. Saswati Mukhopadhyay on 11 December, 2019
Author: Shampa Sarkar
Bench: Shampa Sarkar
11.12.2019
Court No. 19
Item No. 37
Ashoke
C.O. 4160 of 2019
Dr. Tanmoy Mukhopadhyay
-versus-
Smt. Saswati Mukhopadhyay
Ms. Sanghamitra Nandy.
... For the Petitioner.
The husband in Mat Suit No. 36 of 2015 is the petitioner before this Court is
aggrieved by an order dated November 8, 2019 passed by the learned Additional
District Judge, 11th Court at Alipore, District 24 Parganas (South). While
disposing of an application for modification of an order dated May 30, 2017
passed in Misc. Case. No. 16 of 2015; the learned Court below ordered as follows
:
"That henceforth, the Petitioner-husband has to pay the litigation cost @
Rs.3750/- per month in lieu of Rs.15000/-. The petitioner need not pay the
respondent the conveyance charges of Rs.1000/- per month and that order is to be
effective from the date of delivery of judgment of the Act VIII Cases between the parties (i.e. Act VIII Case No. 16/15 & 36/15).
The petitioner is directed to pay a sum of s.16,097/- to the respondent towards the incidental cost of education of the children for purchasing books, shoes etc. If after adjustment of all the directions made above (i.e. conveyance charges paid by him after the date of delivery of judgment of the Act VIII cases against the incidental cost of education) it is found that the petitioner made any extra payment that amount is to be adjusted with the alimony pendente lite for the immediate next month; similarly, if after adjustment if it is found that the petitioner has to pay any extra amount, he must pay the same with the alimony pendente lite for the immediate next month to the Respondent.
There is no order as to cost."
It is the contention of the petitioner that on an application for modification filed by the husband, further liability was imposed on the husband to pay an additional cost of Rs.16,097/- to the wife towards the incidental cost of education of the children for purchasing of books and shoes. The next contention of the petitioner is that the petitioner has now prayed for modification of the order granting maintenance pendente lite due to changed circumstances. First, that the position that the respondent/opposite party was residing with her parents and the question of payment of rent and electricity charges did not arise. Next that the wife had taken up a job and as such the maintenance pendente lite should be reduced in view of the income of the wife for a sum of Rs.60,000/- per month.
With regard to the allegation of the excess payment, I find from the order impugned that the learned Judge had stated in the order that if it was found that the petitioner had made any extra payment, that amount will be adjusted with the alimony pendente lite for the next month.
Having gone through the order impugned, it appears that extra payment for the children have been awarded on the basis of the written objection filed by the respondent/wife. From the averments made in the objection it is found that now the wife and the children were staying with the parents of the wife and the same has been admitted and the learned Judge failed to take into consideration the fact that the wife was working and the documents of which came to the knowledge of the petitioner subsequently so the same could not be produced before the order of maintenance pendente lite was passed.
Prima facie, I find that the learned Judge has misdirected himself in passing the order impugned. He has not taken into consideration the changed circumstances.
The petitioner will go on paying the amount as directed by the court earlier while disposing of the Section 24 application. The amount directed for books and shoes of the children amounting to Rs.16,097/- by the order impugned need not be paid. The litigation cost which was reduced to Rs.3750/- per month as directed by the learned court below by the order impugned should be paid, instead of the amount of litigation cost as directed earlier.
This interim arrangement is made for the time being till the disposal of this application.
The petitioner is directed to serve a copy of this application upon the opposite party and file affidavit of service on the next date of hearing.
Let this matter appear in the list on 6th January, 2020 fairly at the top.
(Shampa Sarkar, J.) 1 4