Ajoy Pal vs 7 Rubi Pal (Nee Kundu) on 11 May, 2017

1

Ct-30 11.5.2017 CO 4088 of 2016

Ajoy Pal
Vs.
7 Rubi Pal (nee Kundu)

Mr. Subhanil Chakraborty
… For the Petitioner
ar Mr. Bratin Dey
… For the Opposite Party

Heard Mr. Subhanil Chakraborty, learned
advocate, representing the petitioner/husband
and also Mr. Bratin Dey, learned advocate,
representing the opposite party/wife with whom
the minor daughter born out of their wedlock has
been staying.

This matter arose to challenge the Order No.
64 dated 19.7.2016 at the instance of the
petitioner/husband who has been dissatisfied
with the order passed by learned Additional
District Judge, 1st Court, Barasat, 24 Parganas
North in Matrimonial Suit no. 26 of 2010 by
which settling arrears liability of the petitioner as
dues has been fixed to the tune of Rs. 1,56,000/-
directing the petitioner to satisfy the same by 12
equally monthly instalments together with
current amount of maintenance pendente lite.

Learned counsel apprised this Court that
2

adjusting the amount passed in the proceeding
under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure
Code Rs.9,000/- was fixed for making payment
of maintenance, out of which Rs.5,000/- was

directed to pay for the minor daughter keeping
the balance for the opposite party/wife.

This is an admitted situation as also
submitted by Mr. Dey upon instruction that his
client has stopped accepting payment of
maintenance amount as a consequence of her
employment, which of course she contended as a
temporary one, which is disputed by the
otherside.

Learned counsel of both sides also submitted
that to determine the alleged arrears the fact of
getting employment by the opposite party/wife
was not taken into consideration and similarly
Mr. Dey apprised the Court that the written
objection as filed by the opposite party/wife
against the petitioner’s application dated 21st
January 2015 was also not considered by the
learned Trial Court.

READ  Shishu Pal Patel vs Sangita Devi on 13 July, 2017

It is also admitted situation against which
Mr. Dey did not oppose, that pursuant to the
3

Court’s order the petitioner/husband has been
making payment of Rs.14,000/- in all i.e.
Rs.9,000/- as per arrear maintenance and Rs.
5,000/- for minor daughter. It is also apprised
that the Matrimonial Suit has come up with the
peremptory stage for recording evidence.
Therefore, to meet the grievances of both sides,
specially when the facts indicated above were not
considered during formulation of the impugned
order and while the petitioner/husband has been
going on making payment in all Rs.14,000/-, the

Order No. 64 dated 19.7.2016 is set aside with
direction to the learned Trial Court to rehear and
dispose of the application dated 21st January,
2015 taking written objection thereto dated 16th
May, 2016 and also the application dated
17.12.2015

into consideration within a period of
two months from the date of communication of
this order without hampering the trial of the
Matrimonial Suit, which shall be proceeded for
its disposal on merit without grant of
unnecessary adjournment to either of the
parties.

Be it made clear that this order also shall not
be any impediment in the matter of payment of
maintenance payable by the husband as has
4

been paying @ Rs 14,000/- indicated above till
satisfaction of the dues.

The revisional application being CO 4088 of
2016 is accordingly disposed of.

No order as to cost.

Urgent photostat certified copy of this order,
if applied for, be given to the parties on usual
undertaking.

(Mir Dara Sheko, J.)
5

Leave a Comment

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