SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Dipali Saha vs Mukul Ranjan Saha on 4 March, 2020

1

Sn 4.3.2020 C.O. 3996 of 2019
667

DIPALI SAHA VS. MUKUL RANJAN SAHA

Mr. Madhusudan Saha Roy
..for the petitioner
Mr. Prodyut Kundu
..for the opposite party

The petitioner before this Court is the wife in

Matrimonial Suit No. 62 of 2007, pending before the learned

Additional District Judge, 3rd Court at Barrackpore, North 24

Parganas.

The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated

January 30, 2019 passed by the learned Court below allowing

maintenance pendente lite of Rs.12,000/‐ per month from the

date of the order and not from the date of the application.

Mr. Saha Roy relied on a decision of Smt. Saroj

Devi Vs.Ashok Puri Goswami, reported in AIR 1988 Rajasthan

84.

On the other hand, the learned Advocate for the

opposite party/husband submits that as the opposite party was
2

paying maintenance to the tune of Rs. 10,000/‐ per month on

the basis of the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate, 5th

Court at Barrackpore, North 24 Parganas in a proceeding

under Section 125 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the

petitioner was not entitled to maintenance pendente lite from

the date of the application.

Having considered the submissions made by the

respective parties, I am of the opinion that the order of

payment maintenance pendente lite at the rate of Rs.12,000/‐

per month from the date of the order is erroneous.

The husband should be directed to pay an amount

of Rs.12,000/‐ per month from the date of the application, that

is, December 1, 2017. The litigation cost will be paid as

directed.

However, it is made clear that the amount paid on

and from December 1, 2017 pursuant to the order of the

learned Judicial Magistrate, 5th Court at Barrackpore, North 24

Parganas will be adjusted and the arrears will be paid after

such adjustments, by the husband in four equal monthly

instalments along with current amount.
3

This revisional application is disposed of.

There will be however no order as to costs.

Urgent photostat certified copy of this order be

given to the parties on priority basis, if the same is applied for.

(Shampa Sarkar,J.)
4
5

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.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

Copyright © 2020 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