IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Civil Revisional Jurisdiction
Appellate Side
Present:The Hon’ble Justice Biswajit Basu
C.O. No. 1972 Of 2016(Assigned)
Somdatta Chatterjee nee Raychaudhuri
versus
Anindya Chatterjee
For Petitioner : Mr. Probal Kr. Mukherjee, Sr. Adv.,
Mr. Sukanta Chakraborty,
Mr. Anindya Halder
For Opposite Party : Mr. Kallol Basu,
Mr. Tanoy Chakraborty,
Mr. Chhandak Dutta
Heard on : 11.06.2019.
Judgment On : 11.06.2019.
Biswajit Basu, J.
1. The revisional application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against Order No. 17 dated March 18, 2016 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, 11th Court, Alipore, District 24 Parganas (South) in Miscellaneous Case No. 27 of 2015 arising out of Matrimonial Suit No. 31 of 2015.
2. The husband/opposite party filed the connected matrimonial suit seeking dissolution of his marriage with the wife/petitioner by a decree of divorce, inter alia, on the grounds of cruelty.
3. The wife in the said suit filed an application under Section 36 of the Special Marriage Act, 1954 praying alimony pendente lite at the rate of Rs. 50,000/- per month. The said application of the wife/petitioner was registered before the learned trial Judge as Misc. Case No. 27 of 2015. The learned trial Judge by the order impugned has disposed of the said Misc. Case thereby refused to grant any alimony pendente lite to the wife/petitioner on the ground that she has sufficient independent income to support herself. However, the learned trial Judge by the said order has awarded a sum of Rs. 30,000/- to the wife petitioner on account of litigation expenses.
4. The grievance of the wife/petitioner is that the learned trial Judge while refusing her prayer for alimony has failed to appreciate that the husband is working in all reputed organizations in USA and is earning 1,20,000 USD per annum which in Indian currency is Rs. 75,00,000/- per annum and she is entitled to maintenance proportionate to the said income of the husband as her income is much less than her requirement and entitlement.
5. The wife/petitioner in the application for alimony pendente lite has disclosed her income from salary at Rs. 48,000/- per month. She in the said application at paragraph 14 stated her requirement with break up. The said paragraph 14 of the application under Section 36 of the Special Marriage Act, 1954 is quoted below:
“14. That the petitioner states that to maintain herself as per the
status of the respondent the petitioner needs a sum of Rs. 50,000/- per month in
following heads : Rs. 10,000/- as household maintenance and other utilities Rs.
4000/- as pocket allowance and Rs. 22,000/- for goods, groceries, clothes and
other daily needs and Rs. 14,000/- legal expenses.”
6. The wife/petitioner, therefore, has assessed her requirement to maintain herself as per the status of the husband/opposite party at Rs. 50,000/- per month. She has admitted that as on the date of filing of the said application her earning was Rs. 48,000/- per month as such her income on the date of filing of the said application for alimony pendente lite was sufficient for her support.
7. The wife/petitioner on cross-examination has admitted that house rent allowances of Rs. 14,133/- and transport allowances of Rs. 3534/- are being reimbursed by her employer. Therefore, the wife/petitioner by virtue of her employment is receiving money from her employer on some of the heads on which her prayer for alimony pendente lite is founded.
8. In terms of the direction passed by this Court the wife/petitioner has produced her salary certificate for the months of December 2018, January 2019 and March 2019. On perusal of the said salary certificates it appears that the wife/petitioner on account of her salary in the month of December 2018 and January 2019 had received salary of Rs. 74,624/- and in the month of March 2019 she had received a sum of Rs. 81,219/-.
9. The object of Section 36 of the Special Marriage Act, 1954 is to provide a temporary financial support pending any action under Chapter V or VI of the said Act to the wife who has no independent income sufficient to maintain herself. The present income of the wife/petitioner as it appears from her aforementioned salary certificates is not less than Rs. 74,000/- per month which is sufficient for her support particularly when she herself has assessed her requirement at Rs. 50,000/- in the application for alimony pendente lite.
10. The learned trial Judge in the order impugned has considered the requirement of the wife/petitioner vis-à-vis her income and is absolutely justified in refusing the prayer of the wife/petitioner for alimony pendente lite. The order impugned, therefore, does not call for any interference.
11. C.O. No. 1972 of 2016 is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. Urgent photostat certified copy of this Judgment, if applied for, be given to the parties on usual undertakings.
(Biswajit Basu, J.)
