Court No. 19
Item No. 8
C.O. 4051 of 2019
Arati Dutta (nee Manna)
Mr. Tapas Kumar Mondal,
Mr. Anirban Dey.
… For the Petitioner.
This is an application filed by the husband/ respondent in Mat Suit No. 121 of
2017 pending before the learned Additional District Judge, 5th Court, Barasat,
District – 24 Parganas (North).
The petitioner is aggrieved by an order dated September 3, 2019 by which his
application for recalling of the order dated November 20, 2018 was rejected. In
the matrimonial suit, the opposite party/wife filed an application under Section
36 of the Special Marriage Act, 1954 being Misc. Case No. 146 of 2017. By an
order dated November 20, 2018; the learned Judge of the court below disposed of
Misc. Case No. 146 of 2017 by directing the husband/petitioner to pay Rs.7,000/-
per month for the maintenance pendente lite to the opposite party/wife and his
minor child. The petitioner was further directed to pay Rs.5,000/- as
litigation cost. The arrear maintenance from July, 2017 was directed to be paid
in six equal monthly instalments.
Aggrieved by the aforementioned order, the petitioner filed an application under
Section 144 of the Code of Civil Procedure for recalling of the order dated
November 20, 2018. The said application for recalling was filed on the ground
that the contentions of the husband/petitioner in his written objection was not
considered by the court while disposing of the Misc. Case No. 146 of 2017.
I find that the learned court below upon considering the facts has come to a
finding that the petitioner had admitted in his written objection filed in
connection with Misc. Case No. 146 of 2017 that he was regularly paying
Rs.6,000/- per month for the maintenance of her wife and the minor child. The
salary slips of the petitioner which was produced by the wife reflected that the
petitioner was earning around Rs.8,000/- per month and the petitioner also had
income from rent from house property. Moreover, the petitioner has himself
admitted that he had been regularly paying Rs.6,000/- to the wife and the child
for their maintenance.
From the records available, the court found that Rs.1800/- was the school fees
of the child and expenses were also incurred for pool car facility. Thus, the
award of Rs.2500/- for the minor child seems to be reasonable and I do not find
any reason to interfere with the same. With regard to Rs.4,500/- to be paid to
the wife, I find that the reasons given by the court below are acceptable and
the husband has not produced any record or document upon consideration of which
the amount awarded by the court below as maintenance pendente lite should be
reduced. Neither any changed circumstances has been pleaded. The husband has not
proved his inability to pay the said awarded amount. Moreover, it is his own
admission that Rs.6,000/- was pay regularly as maintenance.
The order impugned does not call for any interference.
The revisional application is disposed of. There will be no order as to costs.
Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the
parties as expeditiously as possible.
(Shampa Sarkar, J.)