IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CIVIL REVISONAL JURISDICTION
CO No. 2142 of 2015
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
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
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
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
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.
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
(Debi Prosad Dey,J)