IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
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
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.)