SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Devraj Sarkar vs Ranita Sengupta on 7 April, 2017

1

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CIVIL REVISONAL JURISDICTION
APPELLATE SIDE
07.04.17

sh

CO No. 2142 of 2015
Devraj Sarkar
v.

Ranita Sengupta

Mr. Joydeep Kar
Mr. Suddhasatva Banerjee
Ms. Subhasree Patel
… for the petitioner.

Mr. Younush Mondal
… for the opposite party.

Challenge in this revisional application is the order dated April 29, 2015

passed by learned Additional District Judge, 8th Court, Alipore, South 24

Parganas in Misc. Case No. 21 of 2013 arising out of Matrimonial Suit No. 38 of

2013 whereby and whereunder learned trial Court has granted alimony pendente

lite to the tune of Rs. 15,000/- per month in favour of the opposite party from the

date of filing the application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955

and litigation cost of Rs. 20,000/-.

Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with such order the petitioner has filed

this revisional application on amongst other grounds that learned trial Court did

not consider that the opposite party has been working as a Senior Executive in a

reputed firm from before her marriage and that the opposite party had
2

suppressed the material facts at the time of hearing and filing her application

under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act.

Learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner contends that the

opposite party has been working as a Senior Executive in a reputed firm from

before her marriage and she does not divulge such fact at the time of filing

application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act and she did not state to

that effect at the time of her deposition before the learned Court below. Learned

advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner further contends that the marriage

between the parties was solemnized on May 17, 2011 but the opposite party had

left her matrimonial home on July 25, 2011. Finally the opposite party took away

all her belongings and ornaments on July 25, 2011 from the house of the present

petitioner. Admittedly, at the relevant point of time the petitioner had been to

United Kingdom with some assignment of work but ultimately he had to return to

India on February 16, 2013. At the instance of the opposite party a criminal case

under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code was filed by the opposite party and

the petitioner was taken into custody by police and the petitioner had been to

police custody till February 20, 2013. It is contended that since then the

petitioner has been residing in India without any assignment of work and at

present he has no income to provide any sort of maintenance to the opposite

party. On the contrary, the opposite party has been drawing a salary of Rs.

18,444/- from before her marriage as a Senior Executive in a reputed firm.

Learned trial Court did not consider that aspect and thereby came to an
3

erroneous decision with regard to the income of the present petitioner ignoring

the steady income of the opposite party.

Learned advocate appearing on behalf of the opposite party, on the other

hand, contends that learned trial Court has taken care of the income of the

opposite party at the time of passing such order and it has been categorically

observed by learned trial Court that the opposite party is entitled to get financial

support from the petitioner in terms of the status and stature of the petitioner. It

is submitted that the petitioner has been working in England and the petitioner

never disclosed his income before the learned Court below. Naturally, the learned

trial Court was justified in assuming that the petitioner has had sufficient means

to provide financial support to the opposite party. Mere income of Rs. 15,000/- to

Rs.18,000/- per month will not render the opposite party remediless to get

financial support from the petitioner. The petitioner has been working in England

for a long time and he has been getting fabulous amount towards his salary.

Learned trial Court was justified in providing such relief to the tune of

Rs.15,000/- per month in favour of the opposite party.

On scrutiny of the order sheets, I find that the proposal was mooted for

amicable settlement between the parties. Learned senior advocate Mr. Jaydeep

Kar appearing on behalf of the petitioner candidly submits that nothing has been

left in the matrimonial relationship between the parties and the petitioner is

agreeable to pay to the tune of Rs.20,000,00/- towards permanent alimony in

order to terminate the matrimonial relationship between the parties. I find that

learned advocate appearing for the opposite party also admits that the
4

matrimonial relationship between the parties has virtually been terminated in

view of the fact that the petitioner has been residing in United Kingdom and the

opposite party has been working in India.

Learned advocate appearing on behalf of the opposite party contends upon

instruction that the opposite party is also agreeable to terminate the matrimonial

relationship if the petitioner is agreeable to pay to the tune of Rs. 23,000,00/-

towards permanent alimony. It is, therefore, apparent from the submissions of

the learned advocates that the parties are now agreeable to terminate their

matrimonial relationship on payment of some compensation towards permanent

alimony. Therefore, there is absolutely no scope to accept such proposal of the

parties in the present forum. Such matter has to be resolved by learned trial

Court.

In that view of this case, the order dated April 29, 2015 passed by learned

Additional District Judge, 8th Court, Alipore, South 24 Parganas in Misc. Case

No. 21 of 2013 arising out of Matrimonial Suit No. 38 of 2013 is set aside.

Learned trial Court is directed to reconsider the said miscellaneous case

along with the matrimonial suit so that the dispute between the parties may

come to an end according to their desires as reflected in the submissions

recorded in the foregoing paragraphs as soon as possible, preferably within a

period of three months from the date of communication of this order.

Let a copy of this order be forwarded to the learned Court below for its

information and taking necessary action.

5

It is made clear that this Court did not enter into the merits of the case to

facilitate amicable settlement between the parties and with the aforesaid

observation the instant application stands disposed of. However, there shall be

no order as to costs.

Urgent xerox certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the

parties forthwith.

(Debi Prosad Dey,J)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Copyright © 2021 SC and HC Judgments Online at 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 Sectioin 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…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation