Manju Mahato vs Baijnath Mahato on 30 January, 2018

1

Serial No.191(M/L).

January 30, 2018.

SG

CO 2440 of 2016

Manju Mahato

-versus-

Baijnath Mahato

with

CO 794 of 2016

Baijnath Mahato

-versus-

Manju Mahato

Mr Somnath Ray Chowdhury
… for the petitioner
(in CO 2440 of 2016)
and
… for the opposite party
(in CO 974 of 2016).

Mr Sukumar Ghosh
Mr Sandip Ghosh
… for the petitioner
(in CO 794 of 2016)
and
… for the opposite party
(in Co 2440 of 2016).

The husband and wife have both challenged the order for
alimony pendente lite by which the matrimonial court has found the
wife to be entitled to a monthly sum of Rs.7,000/- on account of
maintenance but has awarded Rs.5,500/- per month to be paid by
the husband since it was perceived that the wife’s monthly income
would be at least Rs.1,500/-.

2

Both parties seek to question the propriety of the order on
grounds which do not appear to have been taken before the trial
court. The husband says that the wife stays in a flat which has
been acquired jointly but in respect whereof monthly instalments
are paid only by the husband. The wife complains that the
husband has deliberately defaulted in payment of the monthly
instalments so that the wife may be thrown out from the property in
question. The husband claims that the wife has a regular income
as an LIC agent, but the wife says that her name was only used by
the husband who was engaged as an LIC agent on the side in
addition to his holding a group-D post in the Bally Municipality.

Proceedings are pending between the parties under the
Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. The
husband is facing a charge under
Section 498A of the Penal Code.

The present gross monthly income of the husband appears to
be Rs.28,906/- as evident from a copy of the husband’s salary
certificate for the month of December, 2017.

It will be open to the parties to apply before the trial court for
enhancement or reduction of the alimony pendente lite as directed
to be paid by the order impugned dated December 5, 2015. If either
party is able to demonstrate changed circumstances requiring the
quantum of alimony pendente lite to be modified, such party will be
entitled to make the claim in accordance with law.

The photocopy of the salary certificate for the month of
December, 2017 has been made over to Advocate for the wife in
court today.

CO 2440 of 2016 and CO 794 of 2016 are disposed of, but
without any order as to costs.

3

( Sanjib Banerjee, J. )

Leave a Comment

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