Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Sharmista Kar Purkayastha vs Surajit Kar Purkayastha on 17 June, 2016
Author: Soumen Sen
Bench: Soumen Sen
1 17.06.2016 CAN 9735 of 2015 Court Room No. 37 in Item No. SL-03 CO 3142 of 2015 snandy (DISPOSED OF) Sharmista Kar Purkayastha Vs. Surajit Kar Purkayastha Mr. Aniruddha Chatterjee, Advocate Mr. Kushal Chatterjee, Advocate ......for the Petitioner Mr. Anirban Roy, Advocate Mr. Anuj Singh, Advocate Mr. Debabrata Das, Advocate ......for the Opposite Party In this application the plaintiff/husband/opposite party has prayed for inspection of the original documents on the basis of which the wife has claimed enhancement of the litigation costs as the wife is aggrieved by the order passed by the trial Judge in directing the plaintiff/husband to pay Rs.30,000/- per month as a lumpsum towards payment of litigation costs.
While the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the plaintiff/opposite party contends that the said amount was tendered and refused but the same is disputed by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner/wife.
During the pendency of the main revisional application, this application was taken out for production and inspection of the original documents. It appears that the petitioner has supplied the photocopies of few documents between September 2010 and September 2015 in justification of her claim for payment of litigation costs.
The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the plaintiff /opposite party submits that unless the original copy of such documents are produced and inspected it is difficult for the plaintiff/husband to accept the said documents inasmuch as it would not appear from all the documents disclosed in the proceeding that such legal expenses were incurred in connection with MAT Suit No. 38 of 2014.
The subject matter of challenge in this revisional 2 application is the order passed by the learned Additional District Judge at Alipore in connection with an application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act. In the impugned order it has been recorded that the wife at the relevant point of time was earning a sum of Rs.45,000/- and the husband was earning Rs.1,58,000/-. The wife was living in the quarters allotted in favour of the plaintiff/husband and the rent for the same was being paid by the plaintiff. Although the wife had made a claim for a whooping sum of Rs.9.5 lakhs towards the litigation costs but the wife was unable to produce any document for such payment. The daughter is in the custody of the plaintiff and all expenses of the daughter are borne by the plaintiff/husband.
The trial Court in absence of any document on evidence in support of the expenses incurred by the awarded a sum of Rs.30,000/- as lumpsum amount towards the litigation costs. Being aggrieved, this revisional application has been filed by the petitioner/wife.
The facts narrated in the said impugned order with regard to the income of the parties and other related facts save and except the amount of legal expenses alleged to have been incurred by the wife has remained uncontroverted and is an admitted position.
Mr. Aniruddha Chatterjee, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the wife/petitioner submits that the wife was working as a teacher but at present she is out of employment. The wife appears to have file another application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act. In the said proceeding an order was passed directing the husband/ plaintiff to pay a sum of Rs.35,000/- per month as maintenance pendente lite and the wife presently is receiving a sum of Rs.65,000/- towards maintenance.
The question arose for consideration is whether the order passed by the Trial Court in refusing to allow the petition for litigation costs for a sum of Rs.9.5 lakhs and reduced to it 3 at Rs.30,000/- was just and proper.
It is submitted on behalf of the parties that on an earlier occasion Justice Tandon while had the occasion to consider this application directed the wife to produce relevant documents in support of her claim towards the litigation costs. The documents produced before this Court shows that in connection with the matrimonial proceeding, the wife has incurred some costs which on an assessment should be more than Rs.30,000/- as assessed by the Trial Court.
The Trial Court could not be blamed for the same, as the wife did not produce the required document before the Trial Court. Moreover, at the relevant time the wife was earning a sum of Rs.45,000/-.
Since the wife is without any employment and the litigation costs as awarded on the date of the order if tested and considered in the present scenario, would be inadequate, the plaintiff/husband is directed to pay a lumpsum litigation costs of Rs.80,000/-.
The suit is at the stage of the evidence of the wife. The Trial Court is directed to conclude the evidence of the parties within a period of two months from the date of communication of this order without granting adjournment to either of the parties and shall make endeavour to dispose of the suit within a period four months thereafter.
The aforesaid litigation costs shall be paid along with a sum of Rs.30,000/- as directed by the impugned order within a period of four weeks from date.
The revisional application as well as the application being CAN 9735 of 2015 is accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs.
(Soumen Sen, J.) 4 5