Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Sri Ardhendu Dutta Sarkar vs Minor Miss Puja Dutta Sarkar & Ors on 17 June, 2009
Author: Ashim Kumar Roy
Bench: Ashim Kumar Roy
Form No. J (1) IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Criminal Revisional Jurisdiction Appellate Side Present:
The Hon'ble Justice Ashim Kumar Roy C.R.R. No. 346 of 2008 Sri Ardhendu Dutta Sarkar versus Minor Miss Puja Dutta Sarkar & Ors.
For Petitioner : Mr. Asish Sanyal
Mr. Arijit Dey
For Opposite Parties : Mr. Kallol Mondal
Heard On : May 5th, 2009.
Judgment On : 17-06-2009.
In a proceeding under Section 127 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Midnapore enhanced the monthly maintenance of the wife/opposite party from Rs. 1,000/- to Rs. 1,800/- and that of her minor daughter from Rs. 500/- to Rs. 1,000/- and directed such enhancement of maintenance shall take effect from the date of making of application for enhancement.
The said order of enhancement of maintenance is the subject matter of challenge in the instant criminal revisional application at the instance of the husband.
2. Mr. Asish Sanyal, the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner draws the attention of this Court to the Annexure P-2 of this criminal revisional application and submitted that pursuant to the Court's order from the month of July, 2003 a sum of Rs. 1,500/- per month was deducted from the salary of the petitioner and was paid to the wife/opposite party as the monthly maintenance for herself and for her minor daughter. He further submitted thereafter on and from October, 2004 the employer of the petitioner started deducting a sum of Rs. 2,500/- per month from his salary and paid the same to the wife/opposite party, although a total sum of Rs. 1,500/- was awarded for their maintenance. According to Mr. Sanyal, therefore, a sum of Rs. 1,000/- was deducted in excess from the salary of the petitioner and paid to the opposite party/wife. Mr. Sanyal further submitted that the petitioner having come to learn that at the time of their marriage, the opposite party was married to another person, moved a matrimonial suit for a declaration of nullity of marriage under Section 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act. In connection with the said Matrimonial proceeding the opposite party moved an application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, when the petitioner was directed to pay her a maintenance pendente lite @ Rs. 2,000/- per month. Mr. Sanyal thus submitted that the petitioner is entitled to an adjustment of the amount which he has paid and is paying to the wife/opposite party, over and above the amount of maintenance that have been directed to be paid to her by the criminal court in connection with the aforesaid maintenance proceedings. Mr. Sanyal further submitted that the petitioner is a police constable and earns about Rs. 9,000/- per month and he has to maintain his elderly parents and one dependent brother, whereas the opposite party earns about Rs. 4,000/- per month by selling cosmetics from door to door.
3. On the other hand, Mr. Kallol Mondal, the learned advocate appearing for the opposite party submitted that the petitioner is not paying any maintenance to the wife/opposite party and there is no more deduction of maintenance amount from his salary pursuant to an order passed by the State Administrative Tribunal. He further submitted enhancement of amount of maintenance is fully justified and no interference with the same is called for.
4. I have carefully considered the rival submissions of the parties and perused the impugned order. Having gone through the impugned order I find that the minor daughter of the parties is physically handicapped and although the allegations has been made that the wife/opposite party has some income by way of selling cosmetics from door to door but the said fact could not have been established before the Learned Court below. I further found the Learned Court has come to a definite finding that the petitioner was drawing a sum of Rs. 10,000/- per month as his monthly salary. In my opinion, when the salary of the petitioner is Rs. 10,000/- per month, the total amount of maintenance of Rs. 3,000/- per month for the wife and her minor child cannot be said to be excessive. This Court is thus not inclined to interfere with the quantum of maintenance.
It goes without saying that the amount of maintenance, which the petitioner has been directed to pay in terms of the order passed under Section 127 of the Code of Criminal Procedure shall be adjusted against the amount of maintenance which he has further been directed to pay to the wife/opposite party as maintenance pendente lite by the Civil Court.
So far as the arrear maintenance, if any, is concerned the same shall be liquidated by payment of Rs. 1,000/- per month with current maintenance. The petitioner shall also be entitled to adjustment of such amount of money, if any, which has been deducted from his salary by his office in excess to Rs. 1,500/- before July 22, 2005 against the arrear dues.
This criminal revision thus stands disposed of.
Criminal Section is directed to deliver urgent Photostat certified copy of this Judgement to the parties, if applied for, as early as possible.
(Ashim Kumar Roy,J.)