SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Janardan Singha @ Prabir Singha vs Purnima Singha (Karmakar) & Anr on 28 August, 2019

Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction


The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Jay Sengupta

C.R.R. 2870 of 2017

Janardan Singha @ Prabir Singha
Purnima Singha (Karmakar) Anr.

For the Petitioners : Mr. Debapriya Samanta

For the Opposite Party : Ms. Manali Biswas,

Heard on : 28.08.2019

Judgement delivered on : 28.08.2019

Jay Sengupta, J. :


This is an application challenging an order dated 13.04.2017 passed by the learned

Judicial Magistrate, Berhampore, Murshidabad in Misc. Case No.03/2013 under Section

127 of the Code thereby enhancing the monthly maintenance allowance payable to the

minor child from Rs.2000/- per month to Rs.4000/- per month.

2. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party no.1/wife files a

vakalatnama is taken on record.

3. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits as follows. The

opposite party no.1/wife left the matrimonial home on her own accord. The
petitioner/husband was granted a decree on his application under Section 9 of the Hindu

Marriage Act. Yet the wife did not return. Thereafter, upon an application filed by the

petitioner, MAT Suit No.401 of 2012 under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act was

decreed against the present opposite party no.1 and the marriage was dissolved.

Thereafter, the petitioner also filed an application under Section 7 of the Guardians and

SectionWards Act claiming custody of the child. The same is still pending. Upon an application

filed by the opposite party no.1, a monthly maintenance allowance to the tune of Rs.2000/-

per month was granted for the minor child on 16.11.2011 in MR Case No.62 of 2008. On

11.2.2013, the opposite party no.1 filed an application under Section 127 of the Code

praying for enhancement of the maintenance allowance. On 13.4 2017, the learned

Magistrate passed the impugned order enhancing the monthly maintenance allowance

payable to the minor child. The petitioner has taken all steps to resume marital ties. But all

his efforts failed. He has also sought custody of the child and would like to pay necessary

maintenance allowance for the minor child. Although the petitioner is working in the

education department of the State of West Bengal, the opposite party no.2 is also

employed and is quite capable of maintaining herself and contributing to the maintenance

of the child. At this stage, it would not be proper to enhance the maintenance allowance

since among other things the petitioner has to maintain her ailing mother and married


4. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party no.1 submits as follows.

The fact that the minor child is entitled to receive maintenance allowance from the

petitioner has not been challenged by the petitioner. A sum of Rs.2000/- granted as

maintenance allowance in the year 2011 would necessarily have to be enchanced in the

year 2017. The opposite party no.1 was a mere Anganwari worker earning a paltry sum of
money. On the other hand, the petitioner had a secure job in a department of the State of

West Bengal. As would be evident from “Exhibit-A”, he was earning about Rs.20,330/- per

month at an earlier date. His salary must have increased by now. The prices of essential

commodities have also increased in the meantime. Regardless of the matrimonial

disputes and their adjudication between the husband and wife, the minor child is very

much entitled to maintenance allowance from the husband and at a reasonable rate.

4. I have heard the submissions of the learned Counsels appearing on behalf of

petitioner and the opposite party no.1 and have perused the revision along with the

impugned order.

5. The fact that the minor child was entitled to claim maintenance from the petitioner

was not challenged by the petitioner in any proceeding. The very fact that a sum of

Rs.2000/- was awarded as monthly maintenance allowance in 2011 would imply

that the same requires to be increased on a subsequent date in 2017 when the

learned Magistrate was asked to decide the application under Section 127 of the


6. Regardless of the fate of the matrimonial disputes between the warring couple, so

long as the minor child remains with the mother, the husband is liable to pay

maintenance to the opposite party no.1 for maintaining the minor child.

7. The financial status of the husband/petitioner is also not disputed. He is quite

capable of maintaining the child at the rate as pegged by the learned Magistrate

after enhancement even after defraying his usual expenses. In view of the above
and considering the rise in prices, I do not think the learned Magistrate committed

any error in enhancing the sum of maintenance allowance meant for the minor child

from Rs.2000/- per month as granted in 2011 to a sum of Rs.4000/- per month as

awarded in 2017.

8. I do not find any merit in this application. Accordingly, the revisional application is


9. However, there shall be no order as to costs.

10. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order may be supplied to the parties

expeditiously, if applied for.

(Jay Sengupta, 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