MyNation KnowledgeBase

Landmark Judgments and Articles on Law

Register to Download

Kumar Sankar Chakraborty vs Juthika Chakraborty

Kolkata High Court   

Kumar Sankar Chakraborty vs Juthika Chakraborty on 6/2/1996



Surya Kumar Tiwari, J.

   1. This petition has been filed against the order passed by 6th    Judicial Magistrate. Alipore in Misc. Case No. 518 of 1988.

   2. The opposite party is the wife of the petitioner. Their marriage was    solemnised in the year 1982 and a daughter Sudeshna was born out of    this wedlock. The opposite party alleged that the petitioner    ill-treated her and neglected to maintain her ever-since 1984. The    petitioner is posted at Rourkella and the climate of Rourkella does not    suit the opposite party. She, therefore claims maintenance.

   3. The petitioner denied that he neglected and ill-treated the opposite    party. He has stated that the petitioner has left her matrimonial home    on her own without any rhyme or reason.

   4. The learned Magistrate found that the petitioner had failed to    maintain his wife. Therefore he awarded Rs. 400/- to the opposite party    by way of maintenance. Hence this revisional petition.

   5. The opposite party has stated in her statement that she became sick    in Rourkella and came down to Calcutta for treatment but the petitioner    did not come to take her back to Rourkella nor made any arrangements    for her treatment. The opposite party has stated in her    cross-examination that she did not live at Rourkella and that she was    not willing to live with opposite party apprehending danger to her    life. She further emphatically stated that she was not willing to    reside with the petitioner even if he gives undertaking for secutity of    her life. She stated that the petitioner used to torture her. She also    stated that she wants to live separately with her daughter.

See also  Non maintenance of record not just a clerical error but the spring board for commission of offence of foeticide

   6. PW 2 Bimal Goswami is the brother of opposite party. He has not    alleged that the opposite party ever complained of cruelty. He only    says that the petitioner never came to see the petitioner except once.
   He admits in his cross-examination that he has no objection if the    petitioner takes the opposite party with her to Rourkella. He denies    that the petitioner was un-willing to go to Rourkella. He also states    that he tried his level best to send the petitioner to Rourkella.

   7. PW 3 Dipendra Narayan Goswami is the uncle of the opposite party. He    admits that he requested the opposite party to live with the petitioner    at Rourkella. He only complains that the petitioner did not send any    money at the time when the opposite party was confined in the nursing    home. He also admits that he had never seen any ill-treatment of the    opposite party nor was he told about any such incindent.

   8. Even if the petitioner fails to pay the treatment charges to his    brother-in- law, then the brother-in-law can claim that amount from the    petitioner. The questioning of neglect does not arise. It appears that    the opposite party does not want to live in Calcutta and reside at    Rourkella with her husband. She is, therefore, living in Calcutta on    her own without any just cause. I, therefore, find that the learned    Magistrate was not justified in awarding maintenance to the opposite    party.

   9. The petition is, therefore, allowed and the order allowing payment    of maintenance to wife is hereby set aside.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Not found ...? HOW TO WIN 498a, DV, DIVORCE; Search in Above link
MyNation Times Magzine

All Law documents and Judgment copies
Laws and Bare Acts of India
Important SC/HC Judgements on 498A IPC
Rules and Regulations of India.


CopyRight @ MyNation

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Section 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

See also  No case made out of u/s 420, 467 and 120B IPC, Quashed with s.482
MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation