Take notes as you read a judgment using our Virtual Legal Assistant and get email alerts whenever a new judgment matches your query (Query Alert Service). Try out our Premium Member services — Free for one month.
Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Khusilal Naskar vs Uma Naskar on 1 April, 2024
Author: Shampa Sarkar
Bench: Shampa Sarkar
01.04.2024
Ct. No. 19
Sl. Nos.22 2931
Cp
C.O. No. 3964 of 2022
Khusilal Naskar
Vs.
Uma Naskar
With
C.O. 253 of 2023
Uma Naskar
Vs.
Khusilal Naskar
Mr. Tanmoy Mukherjee
Mr. Manoranjan Jana
Ms. Mitali Jana
Mr. Rudranil Das
Mr. Soumava Santra
….for the petitioner
in C.O. No. 3964 of 2022.
Mr. Peasant Bishal
….for the opposite party
in C.O. No. 3964 of 2022.
1.
C.O. 3964 of 2022 and C.O. 253 of 2023 are taken up
together for hearing and are disposed of by this
common order. The same arise out of the order dated
November 14, 2022, passed by the learned Additional
District Judge, 9th Court, Alipore in Misc. Case No. 15
of 2002. Misc. Case No. 15 of 2002 arises out of
Matrimonial Suit No.15 of 2002.
2. By the order impugned, the learned court allowed an
application filed by the wife for enhancement of the
maintenance, owing to change in circumstances.
2
Enhancement of salary of the husband to
Rs.1,45,000/- per month during the pendency of the
Mat Suit and subsequent receipt of a lumpsum
amount of money towards retirement benefit, led to
this application.
3. The specific case of the wife was that when the order
was passed by the High Court with regard to
maintenance pendente lite, the salary of the husband
was Rs.45,000/-. Subsequently, the husband got a
promotion and he retired while drawing a salary of
Rs.1,45,000/-. Thereafter, monthly pension of the
husband of Rs.53,000/- was received. The wife
claimed enhancement for herself and for the
unmarried daughter. The learned Trial Judge heard
the parties and also considered the orders passed in
the proceedings under the Domestic Violence Act and
directed that Rs.16,000/- per month as enhanced
maintenance from the date of the order, for the
petitioner and the daughter.
4. According to the wife, namely, Uma Naskar, the
present monthly pension is around Rs.63,779/- and
Rs.16,000/- was meagre. Moreover, the
superannuation benefits of the husband was around
Rs.80,00,000/-.
5. Mr. Mukherjee, learned advocate represents the
husband and submits that the order impugned suffers
3
from various irregularities. The daughter who had
attained the age of majority was not entitled to any
maintenance under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage
Act. The receipt of the retirement benefits to the extent
of Rs.80,00,000/- could not be proved before the
court. The son, who is a B. Tech engineer, was also
looking after the wife/mother.
6. Having heard the rival contentions of the respective
parties, this court is of the view that maintenance for
the daughter cannot be directed by the court while
deciding an application for enhancement under
Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act. She had
attained majority. However, this court cannot rule out
the change in the circumstances, inasmuch as, the
income of the husband had gone up in the meantime
and at present the pension is around Rs.63,779/-. It
cannot be also ruled out that a substantial amount
may have been received at the time of retirement as
the husband was serving in a responsible and senior
post. This is a fit case for enhancement of
maintenance pendente lite for the wife.
7. Under such circumstances, both the revisional
applications are disposed of with the following
modifications to the order impugned:-
a) Towards arrears, a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- shall
be paid to the wife within two weeks from date.
4
This amount is a rough calculation made by this
court having regard to the fact that the income
of the husband had substantially increased over
a period of time and the status of the wife
should have improved with such enhancement.
The amount awarded earlier was insufficient,
considering the price index.
b) Rs. 13,000/- per month as maintenance
pendente lite shall be paid exclusively to the
wife, month by month every month, on and from
April, 2024 within 10th of the month.
c) The daughter may proceed under the
appropriate law for maintenance against her
father.
8. It appears that the Matrimonial Suit has been pending
for 21 years. The children have attained majority in
the meantime and have almost completed their
education. The son is 39 years old and the daughter is
28 years old.
9. Thus, in my opinion, the parties should be relegated to
mediation and the learned Trial Judge must explore
the possibility of a settlement by way of mediation,
especially in view of the allegation and counter
allegation made by the parties in this regard.
10. The revisional applications are disposed accordingly.
There shall be no order as to costs.
5
Parties are to act on the server copy of this order.
A photocopy of this judgment and order shall be
retained with the records of C.O. 253 of 2023.
(Shampa Sarkar, J.)
