IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
18-05-2017 Civil Revisional Jurisdiction
. C.O.No.1143 of 2016
Sri Sujay Kumar Das
Mrs. Mousumi Das
None …for the petitioner
None …for the opposite party
None represents the petitioner as well as the
opposite party; nor any accommodation is sought for.
Therefore, the case is taken up for consideration and
disposal on merit.
Perused the materials on record and the order
The CO arose out of an application under Article
227 of the Constitution of India which has been directed
assailing Order No.12 dated January 15, 2016 passed by
learned Additional District Judge, 1st Court at Hooghly in
Matrimonial Suit No.100 of 2014 (Sri Sujay Das v. Smt.
Mousumi Das) where learned trial Judge, upon hearing
both sides, allowed the application under section 24 of the
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 filed by the opposite party-wife
granting maintenance pendente lite at the rate of `8,000
and `6,000 per month for the maintenance of two minor
children who have been staying with their mother apart
from the litigation costs to the extent of `8,000.
It also appears from the order dated June 29, 2016
passed by this court that the petitioner-husband obtained
one conditional stay of all further proceedings of the
matrimonial suit till disposal of this revisional proceedings
subject to payment of `1,00,000 before learned court below
within the stipulated period.
It is needless to mention that for non-appearance
on behalf of the petitioner there is no opportunity before
this court to observe if the compliance is made at all. Be
that as it may, learned trial Judge took note of the
employment and monthly earnings of the husband and
equally the financial condition of the wife who has been
staying separately with the two minor children born out
the wedlock of the parties. It also appears that the
opposite party had to file a separate proceeding under the
Domestic Violence Act.
Therefore, taking note of the financial condition of
both the parties and equally balancing the situation in
view of the need of maintenance, particularly during
pendency of the matrimonial suit, where the opposite party
is to combat by engaging learned counsel on behalf of her
choice, apart from maintaining minor children staying with
her, when learned trial Judge exercised the judicial
discretion in imposing the amount of maintenance
pendente lite for the opposite party and also for the
maintenance amount for the children, apart from the
amount of litigation costs, this court does not find any
logical reason to interfere with the same; save and except
putting direction upon learned trial Judge to take note of
the conduct of the husband so far as the payment of the
dues and to expedite the trial of the matrimonial suit as
early as possible taking convenience of the diary of the
court so that by disposal of the suit the burden of the
husband in the matter of making payment of maintenance
pendente lite may have been at least exonerated.
In view of the above observations, affirming No.12
dated January 15, 2016 passed by learned court below,
the revisional application stands dismissed.
No order as to costs.
The department is directed to communicate a copy
of this order to learned court below where Matrimonial
Suit No.100 of 2014 is proceeding at once for information.
Certified photostat copy of this order, if applied for,
shall be given to the parties.
[Mir Dara Sheko, J]