Sanjib Laha vs 37 Smt. Rinku Laha on 17 May, 2017

1

Ct-30 17.5.2017 CO 1051 of 2016

Sanjib Laha
Vs.

37 Smt. Rinku Laha

Mrs. Jayeta Kaunda (Mitra)
… For the Opposite Party
ar

Mrs. Jayeta Kaunda (Mitra), learned

advocate, holding the brief to represent the
opposite party, Smt. Rinku Laha, is present.

None appears to represent the petitioner.

Learned counsel for the opposite party
undertakes to file Vokalatnama in the
department by Friday i.e. 19.5.2017.

Heard Mrs. Kaunda (Mitra) and perused the
materials on record.

It appears that the application being CO
1051 of 2016 has been directed by the
petitioner/husband assailing the order dated
20th January, 2016 passed by the learned
Additional District Judge, Arambagh, Hooghly in
connection with Misc. Case No. 3A of 2014, a
proceeding under Section 24 of the Hindu
Marriage Act arising in the Matrimonial Suit no.
119 of 2013 instituted by the petitioner/husband
2

seeking divorce under Section 13(1) of the Hindu
Marriage Act, 1951. Upon hearing learned
counsel for the opposite party/wife as well as

taking note of the impugned order reflecting very
apparent obstinate conduct of the
petitioner/husband, who before the learned Trial
Judge did not even hesitate to depose, “as my
wife has put me behind the bus as such I will not
pay any maintenance to her”.

It is pertinent to mention that the reason of
remaining behind the bar of the petitioner may
be one of the other sequences as a consequence
of initiation of criminal proceeding, had there
been any cognizable offence made out against
him, of course the said complaint would be
subject to investigation and then subject to
framing of charge, and then subject to trial result
of which may end favouring either way. But
when the Matrimonial Suit under the Act has
been initiated by the husband seeking divorce
where application was filed seeking maintenance
pendente lite within the specific provision of the
Act, and, when it has been adjudicated on
contest then till said order subsists the party
who is made liable to pay is bound to comply.
Failing which at the instance of the other side
3

the further proceeding of the Matrimonial Suit
may come at halt, if it is so prayed upon so
advised.

READ  Pramod Kumar vs Govt Of India on 6 April, 2017

Be that as it may, though none appears on
behalf of the petitioner/husband upon hearing
learned counsel for the opposite party/wife the
matter is taken up for disposal on merit.

It appears that the learned Trial Judge taking

note of socio-economic condition, status of the
husband, and observing that there being no
source of income of the wife, and, there being
minor daughter born out of wedlock of the
parties who also has been lying with her mother
took rather lenient view as far as it would be
practicable directing the petitioner/husband to
pay maintenance pendente lite for the opposite
party/wife only @ Rs. 3,500/- per month and @
Rs. 4,000/- per month for the minor daughter
from August 2014, although the Matrimonial
Suit was filed in the year 2013 i.e. about one
year before the application. That apart learned
Trial Judge also took care of granting reasonable
instalments to satisfy the dues, fallen due with
effect from August 2014.

4

Therefore, in the decision making process or
even on merit the order impugned having no
sufferance from any point of illegality and
thereby having no lapses in the decision making
process the Order No. 25 dated 20th January,
2016 passed by learned Additional District
Judge, Arambagh, Hooghly in connection with
Misc. Case No. 3A of 2014 under reference is
affirmed and the revisional application being CO
1051 of 2016 stands dismissed and the attitude
of the petitioner to frustrate the statutory right of
the opposite party in getting maintenance
pendente lite is disapproved.

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

No order as to cost.

Department is directed to communicate a

copy of this order at once to the learned Trial
Judge for information with direction to proceed
with the suit for its disposal in accordance with
law, of course taking care of as to whether the
petitioner/husband has been complying with the
order of maintenance pendente lite as granted by
Learned Trial Court.

Urgent photostat certified copy of this order,
if applied for, be given to the parties on usual
5

undertaking.

(Mir Dara Sheko, J.)

Leave a Comment

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