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