Dilip Kumar Ghosh vs Mrs. Kakali Ghosh on 20 June, 2017

1

C.O. No.3411 of 2016
Dilip Kumar Ghosh
v.
Mrs. Kakali Ghosh
20.06.17
SL-04 Mr. Dibyendu Chatterjee
Ct.30 Mr. Siddhartho Roy … for the petitioner.
(S.R.)
Mr. Arnab Saha … for the opposite party.

Heard Mr. Dibyendu Chatterjee being assisted by

Mr. Siddhartho Roy representing the petitioner/husband.

Heard Mr. Arnab Saha representing the opposite

party/wife.

The application under Article 227 of the

Constitution of India has been directed assailing the order

dated 20th June, 2016 passed by the learned District

Judge, Murshidabad on an application under Section 24

of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, registered as Misc. Case

No.25 of 2013, arose out of the Matrimonial Suit for

divorce being no.189 of 2012 filed by the

petitioner/husband.

Perusing the materials on record and the impugned

order, it reveals that out of the wedlock of the parties they

have a minor daughter who was born sometime in the
2

year 2002 and now being aged about 15 (fifteen) years is

reading in Class IX by remaining under the care and

custody of her mother i.e. the opposite party.

Mr. Chatterjee virtually ventilated grievance of his

client since the learned Trial Court did not consider the

period, which was consumed for the purpose of

reconciliation between the parties, and the said period

was from 13th March, 2014 to 14th July, 2015. Mr.

Chatterjee, on taking leave of this Court, submitted

supplementary affidavit annexing copies of certified copies

of the orders-sheets of the proceedings, which are kept on

record. Mr. Chatterjee for the husband further submitted

READ  Manjunatha vs The State Of Karnataka on 20 May, 2014

that though the wife of his client has some other means

but those were not considered in proper perspective by

the learned Trial Court.

Mr. Saha, per contra supporting the impugned

order, of course, in his usual fairness submitted that if

the Court considers exonerating the husband for the

period meted out for the purpose of reconciliation between

the parties than his client would not mind. This Court

has been apprised of, that the wife did not file any
3

revisional application assailing the order impugned,

meaning thereby, the amount of Rs.5,000/- (five

thousand only) what was granted for the purpose of

maintenance of the minor daughter and Rs.3,000/- (three

thousand only) as granted towards maintenance

pendente lite and Rs.10,000/- (ten thousand only) as

litigation cost were satisfactory to meet the need of

maintenance for herself as well as for her daughter. From

the order-sheets of the proceedings, it reveals that further

hearing was adjourned on 13th March, 2014 by standing

both the parties for reconciliation. Though, within the

impugned order the learned Trial Court did not lay any

observation about the exact period consumed for such

reconciliation but the order sheets right from 30th March,

2014 till before 14th July, 2015 show the circumstance

favouring the petitioner/husband to allow him

exoneration only for that period. Be it mentioned that the

impugned order providing maintenance pendente lite has

been directed to be enforceable from the date of

application under Section 24 i.e. 18th February, 2013.

Therefore, the impugned order is modified by

READ  Ajay Kumar Yadav vs State on 12 March, 2013

enforcing the same keeping liability of the
4

petitioner/husband for making payment of maintenance

pendente lite for his wife i.e. the opposite party from the

period from 18th February, 2013 till 12th March, 2014 and

again from 14th July, 2015 onwards which shall remain as

a final amount towards maintenance pendente lite which

shall be payable by the husband till disposal of the

Matrimonial Suit. Be it mentioned that as the learned

Trial Court has also considered the amount inclusive of

the amount of maintenance granted in favour of the wife

under Section 125 of the Code of Civil Procedure, it

means that the petitioner/husband shall go on making

payment of maintenance pendente lite at the rate of

Rs.3,000/- for the wife and Rs.5,000/- for the daughter,

barring the period referred to above, which is applicable

only for the wife and not for the daughter, because the

right to maintenance of the daughter also during said

period of reconciliation is kept uninterrupted, and the

husband shall satisfy all arrears and shall go on making

payment till disposal of the suit.

Thus, by modifying the impugned order the

revisional application is allowed in part with directions to

the learned Trial Court now to expedite the proceedings of
5

the Matrimonial Suit for its expeditious disposal without

grant of unnecessary adjournment either of the parties.

There shall be no order as to costs.

(Mir Dara Sheko, J.)

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *