Ajit Kumar Nayek vs Shrimati Mousumi Nayak on 28 June, 2017

1

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
28-06-2017

Civil Revisional Jurisdiction
Subrata
. C.O.No.1319 of 2016
Ajit Kumar Nayek

-vs-

Shrimati Mousumi Nayak

Mr. Sourav Sen …for the petitioner

Mr. Himadri Barua
Mr. Hiranmoy Paik …for the opposite party

Heard Mr Sen representing the petitioner-husband
and also Mr Barua being assisted by Mr Paik representing
the opposite party-wife.

The case under Article 227 of the Constitution has
come up before this court at the instance of the petitioner-
husband who has assailed Order No.9 dated February 20,
2016 passed by learned Additional District Judge at
Diamond Harbour, South 24-Parganas in Misc. Case No.14
of 2015 arose in Mat. Suit No.136 of 2015.

Mr Sen during course of hearing, in his usual
fairness, submitted that so far as the amount of
maintenance pendente lite as granted by learned trial court
allowing `3,000 per month for the wife and `3,000 per
month for their school going minor son he has no objection,
except as regards amount of `30,000 as directed by learned
trial Judge towards litigation costs, which, according to
him, is exorbitant. However, Mr Sen prays for some
relaxation so that the petitioner may carry out the order of
the court without hardship.

2

Mr Barua, on the other hand, submitted that the
present salary of the petitioner is about `56,000; and
therefore, there cannot be any hardship in the matter of
making such one-time payment so that the wife may be
able to contest conveniently by engaging a lawyer of her
choice.

On the point of salary of `56,000 per month Mr Sen
however disputed. However, even before this court no
salary certificate showing monthly net income of the
husband is produced. Be that as it may, from the
observations of learned trial court it reveals that the
husband being an assistant teacher earns about `50,000
per month. In view of such quantum of salary, even if it is
assumed that the petitioner has been earning not more
than `50,000 per month, then by making payment of
`6,000 in all for his wife and minor son, there cannot be
any inconvenience or hardship on the part of the petitioner
to satisfy such one-time payment towards litigation costs in
favour of his wife.

However, as urged by Mr Sen, to ease out the
hardship, instead of making payment of such amount of
`30,000 by two instalments as granted by learned trial
Judge, the petitioner is directed to satisfy such amount of
litigation costs of `30,000 (with which there is no reason to
interfere) by three instalments. The petitioner shall comply
with such directions by making payment of first instalment
amounting to `10,000 along with the current maintenance
amount by the first week of July 2017 and the second one
3

in the same process by the first week of August 2017 and
the third one by the first week of September 2017.

With the directions as above, CO No.1319 of 2016 is
disposed of by allowing the prayer in part, failing which
learned trial court may record appropriate order at the
option of the opposite party-wife.

Certified photostat copy of this order, if applied for,
shall be given to the parties.

[Mir Dara Sheko, J]

Leave a Comment

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