Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Masud Alam vs Mariam Bibi & Anr on 24 December, 2014
Author: Ashim Kumar Roy
Bench: Ashim Kumar Roy
113 03.12.2014
sm In the High Court at Calcutta Criminal Revisional Jurisdiction Appellate Side C.R.R.No.3600 of 2014 Masud Alam Vs. Mariam Bibi & Anr.
Mr.Musharraf Alam Sk... for the petitioner Hearing concluded. Matter stands C. A.V. (Ashim Kumar Roy, J.) In the High Court at Calcutta Criminal Revisional Jurisdiction Appellate Side Present:-
The Hon'ble Mr.Justice Ashim Kumar Roy CRR No.3607 of 2014 Jagatpati Sadhu @ Animesh Vs. Puja Sadhu & Anr.
For the petitioner. : Mr.Sajal Kumar Ghosh. Heard on: December 3, 2014.
Judgement on: December 24, 2014.
Ashim Kumar Roy, J.-
The petitioner has been directed to pay a sum of Rs.5000/- per month to the wife/opposite party no.1 as her maintenance by the learned court below. The said order is under challenge in this criminal revision.
Now, going through the records it is found the marriage has not been disputed and the court below upon appreciation of evidence gave its findings on fact that the wife/opposite party was compelled to leave her matrimonial home due to physical and mental torture perpetrated upon her by the petitioner and the petitioner having sufficient means is neglecting to maintain her.
The learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to show that such finding is perverse, erroneous and against the materials on record. Therefore, the question of interference with the order of granting maintenance does not at all arise.
So far as the quantum of maintenance is concerned, it is urged on behalf of the petitioner that he has to maintain his old ailing parents. Therefore, if he is required to pay that much of amount of maintenance to the wife/opposite party that will cause great hardship to him.
It appears from the record that the petitioner is an Assistant Teacher in a primary school and from his pay slip for the month of January 2014, it was found by the trial court that he received more than Rs.19,000/- as his salary for that month excluding dearness allowance.
It goes without saying that the petitioner is obliged to maintain his parents but for that reason he cannot be exonerated from his liability to maintain his wife. The maintenance while must not be luxurious, it must not also be penurious. The amount of maintenance awarded on the face of the petitioner's monthly income cannot be too excessive and, therefore, needs no interference.
This criminal revisional application has no merit and, accordingly, stands dismissed and disposed of.
Urgent photostat copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties at an early date.
(Ashim Kumar Roy, J.) sm.