1
13
sandip C.O. No. 2487 of 2019
(Assigned)
Ct. 21
09.09.19
Reshmi Ghosh nee Tarafdar
Versus
Niloy Ghosh
Mr. Rajdeep Bhattacharya … for the petitioner.
Mr. Saunak Bhattacharya,
Mr. Chandranath Sarkar … for the opposite party.
The opposite party has filed an application before
the learned District Judge at Alipore under the provisions of
The Guardian and SectionWards Act, 1890 (hereinafter referred to
as the said Act ‘in short) registered as Act VIII Case No. 48 of
2015 praying custody of his minor daughter, who is now
aged about 13 years and a student of Class – VIII of La
Martiniere School, Kolkata.
The mother of the minor, the petitioner herein in
the said proceeding filed an application under Section 151 of
the Code of Civil Procedure thereby praying maintenance for
the minor daughter of the parties and litigation expenses.
The learned trial Judge by the order impugned has
fixed a sum of Rs. 9,000/- per month on account of
maintenance of the daughter of the parties and a further
sum of Rs. 20,000/- on account of litigation expenses.
The grievance of the petitioner is that the learned
2
trial Judge only on the basis of the acknowledgement of the
Income Tax Return of the opposite party has fixed the said
amount without considering his other sources of income.
Learned counsel for the opposite party submits that
in course of hearing of the present revisional application his
client could detect some documents wherefrom it will appear
that the mother has also independent source of income,
therefore she is also liable to share the expenses for the
daughter.
Be that as it may, the petitioner is complaining that
the learned trial Judge has not considered the relevant
documents to ascertain the actual income of the father and
seeks an opportunity to produce more documents in
support of her claim of maintenance for the daughter at a
higher rate and since the husband is also seeking
opportunity to substantiate his claim that the wife is in
earning hand, this court feels that justice will be sub-served,
if the matter is sent back to the Court below for a fresh
decision on the said application.
The order impugned on the said ground is set aside
with the direction to the learned Trial Judge to decide the
said application afresh expeditiously.
However, to protect the interest of the child by
consent of the parties, the father is directed to pay a sum of
Rs. 18,000/- per month pending adjudication of the
3
application under Section 151 of the Code.
It is made clear the father shall make such payment
without prejudice to his rights and contentions in the
pending application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil
Procedure and the payments to be made by him in terms of
this order shall be subject to the adjustment with the final
amount of maintenance of the minor that may be
determined by the learned trial Judge on the said
application.
Mr. Saunak Bhattacharya, learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the father/opposite party submits
that the application under Section 12 of the said Act filed by
the father in the main lis is pending since 2015 which needs
to be disposed of expeditiously.
The learned trial Judge is requested that
immediately after disposal of the application under Section
151 of the Code and on compliance of the order that may be
passed on the said application under Section 151 of the
Code, shall dispose of the application under Section 12 of
the said Act expeditiously.
With the above, C.O. No. 2487 of 2019 is disposed
of.
There will be no order as to costs.
Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if
applied for, be supplied to the parties subject to compliance
4
with all requisite formalities.
(Biswajit Basu, J.)
5
