Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Debabrata Chatterjee vs Mahuya Chatterjee on 1 March, 2016
Author: Joymalya Bagchi
Bench: Joymalya Bagchi
1 01.03.2016(293)
(ap) C.R.R. No. 2157 of 2015 Debabrata Chatterjee Versus Mahuya Chatterjee Re: An application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 03.07.2015 Mr. Subir Ganguly. ...For the petitioner.
Mr. D. N. Chatterjee,
Mr. Partha Sarathi Das,
Mr. Bimal Sil. ...For the opposite party.
Judgment and order 30.04.2015 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 1st Court, Barasat, North 24 Parganas in Criminal Revision No.69 of 2014 reversing the order dated 21.01.2014 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 2nd Court at Barasat, North 24 Parganas in Maintenance Case No. 42/08 (T.R.17/08) directing maintenance at the rate of Rs.4,000/- per month for the opposite party/wife has been assailed.
It appears that the parties were married to each other on 05.03.1988 and a male child was born to the couple on 28.04.1990. Thereafter the petitioner went to Bisakhapattnama for official duty and kept the opposite party at her parental home. On 22.11.1992 the petitioner allegedly threatened the opposite party with dire consequences. Some monies were initially paid through money orders but the petitioner did not give any monetary assistance to the opposite party and her son. The petitioner was working as a Manager in Braith Waite Company and took 1 2 voluntary retirement therefrom. It is claimed that the petitioner is earning Rs.25,000/- to Rs.30,000/- per month as a lecturer in a college.
The petitioner opposed such application and submitted that the opposite party wilfully withdrew the company from the matrimonial home and in spite of repeated requests she did not return to the matrimonial home. He has been regularly paying monetary support to the tune of Rs.1,500/- per month to the opposite party/wife to bear her expenses.
The learned Sessions Jude after considering the evidence on record directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.4,000/- per month to the opposite party/wife.
After considering the materials on record, the learned Magistrate came to a finding that the opposite party was entitled to maintenance and accordingly directed a sum of Rs.4,000/- per month to be granted.
Mr. Ganguly, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the petitioner is also paying maintenance to the son at the rate of Rs.4,000/-, who has presently attained majority. He further submits that the learned revisional court illegally reversed a finding of fact recorded by the learned Magistrate. He further submits that there was no material on record to show that the wife had withdrew from the matrimonial home without any justifiable cause.
On the other hand, Mr. Chatterjee, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party/wife submits that she left her parental home and thereafter the petitioner ill-treated her and refused to take her back to the matrimonial home.
I have considered the materials on record. I find from the evidence of the opposite party/wife that the petitioner threatened her on various 2 3 occasions and refused and neglected to take her back to the matrimonial home.
It is apparent to note although the opposite party is residing separately, no suit for restitution of conjugal right was filed by the petitioner to show any genuine eagerness to take back the opposite party/wife.
Accordingly, I am of the opinion that the revisional court rightly came to a finding that the opposite party/wife was entitled to an order of maintenance.
Coming to the quantum of maintenance, I find that the amount fixed is a reasonable one in view of the standard of living and the income potential of the petitioner husband. It has been submitted that the petitioner is also paying maintenance for the son and the same ought to be adjusted with the order of maintenance passed in favour of the opposite party/wife.
In view of the fact that the order of maintenance in favour of the son does not relate to the opposite party/wife, there cannot be any question of adjustment of maintenance paid in such civil proceeding to the son qua the opposite party/wife.
In view of the above discussion, the revision petition stands dismissed.
Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties as early as possible.
(Joymalya Bagchi, J.) 3 4 4 5 5