1
C.O. No.3411 of 2016
Dilip Kumar Ghosh
v.
Mrs. Kakali Ghosh
20.06.17
SL-04 Mr. Dibyendu Chatterjee
Ct.30 Mr. Siddhartho Roy … for the petitioner.
(S.R.)
Mr. Arnab Saha … for the opposite party.
Heard Mr. Dibyendu Chatterjee being assisted by
Mr. Siddhartho Roy representing the petitioner/husband.
Heard Mr. Arnab Saha representing the opposite
party/wife.
The application under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India has been directed assailing the order
dated 20th June, 2016 passed by the learned District
Judge, Murshidabad on an application under Section 24
of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, registered as Misc. Case
No.25 of 2013, arose out of the Matrimonial Suit for
divorce being no.189 of 2012 filed by the
petitioner/husband.
Perusing the materials on record and the impugned
order, it reveals that out of the wedlock of the parties they
have a minor daughter who was born sometime in the
2
year 2002 and now being aged about 15 (fifteen) years is
reading in Class IX by remaining under the care and
custody of her mother i.e. the opposite party.
Mr. Chatterjee virtually ventilated grievance of his
client since the learned Trial Court did not consider the
period, which was consumed for the purpose of
reconciliation between the parties, and the said period
was from 13th March, 2014 to 14th July, 2015. Mr.
Chatterjee, on taking leave of this Court, submitted
supplementary affidavit annexing copies of certified copies
of the orders-sheets of the proceedings, which are kept on
record. Mr. Chatterjee for the husband further submitted
that though the wife of his client has some other means
but those were not considered in proper perspective by
the learned Trial Court.
Mr. Saha, per contra supporting the impugned
order, of course, in his usual fairness submitted that if
the Court considers exonerating the husband for the
period meted out for the purpose of reconciliation between
the parties than his client would not mind. This Court
has been apprised of, that the wife did not file any
3
revisional application assailing the order impugned,
meaning thereby, the amount of Rs.5,000/- (five
thousand only) what was granted for the purpose of
maintenance of the minor daughter and Rs.3,000/- (three
thousand only) as granted towards maintenance
pendente lite and Rs.10,000/- (ten thousand only) as
litigation cost were satisfactory to meet the need of
maintenance for herself as well as for her daughter. From
the order-sheets of the proceedings, it reveals that further
hearing was adjourned on 13th March, 2014 by standing
both the parties for reconciliation. Though, within the
impugned order the learned Trial Court did not lay any
observation about the exact period consumed for such
reconciliation but the order sheets right from 30th March,
2014 till before 14th July, 2015 show the circumstance
favouring the petitioner/husband to allow him
exoneration only for that period. Be it mentioned that the
impugned order providing maintenance pendente lite has
been directed to be enforceable from the date of
application under Section 24 i.e. 18th February, 2013.
Therefore, the impugned order is modified by
enforcing the same keeping liability of the
4
petitioner/husband for making payment of maintenance
pendente lite for his wife i.e. the opposite party from the
period from 18th February, 2013 till 12th March, 2014 and
again from 14th July, 2015 onwards which shall remain as
a final amount towards maintenance pendente lite which
shall be payable by the husband till disposal of the
Matrimonial Suit. Be it mentioned that as the learned
Trial Court has also considered the amount inclusive of
the amount of maintenance granted in favour of the wife
under Section 125 of the Code of Civil Procedure, it
means that the petitioner/husband shall go on making
payment of maintenance pendente lite at the rate of
Rs.3,000/- for the wife and Rs.5,000/- for the daughter,
barring the period referred to above, which is applicable
only for the wife and not for the daughter, because the
right to maintenance of the daughter also during said
period of reconciliation is kept uninterrupted, and the
husband shall satisfy all arrears and shall go on making
payment till disposal of the suit.
Thus, by modifying the impugned order the
revisional application is allowed in part with directions to
the learned Trial Court now to expedite the proceedings of
5
the Matrimonial Suit for its expeditious disposal without
grant of unnecessary adjournment either of the parties.
There shall be no order as to costs.
(Mir Dara Sheko, J.)
