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)
Partha Sarathi Mondal vs Smt. Rama Debnath on 27 February, 2024
Author: Shampa Sarkar
Bench: Shampa Sarkar
27.02.2024
Ct. No. 19
Sl. No.10
Cp
C.O. No. 4281 of 2023
Partha Sarathi Mondal
Vs.
Smt. Rama Debnath
Mr. Amitabha Ghosh
Ms. Arpita Dhar
…..for the petitioner.
By the order dated July 19, 2023, passed by the
learned Additional District Judge, 3rd Court, Alipore in Misc.
Case No. 85 of 2022 arising out of Matrimonial Suit No. 125
of 2018, maintenance pendente lite of Rs.20,000/- per
month was directed to be paid to the wife from the date of
filing of the application till the disposal of the suit. Litigation
cost of Rs.5000/- was also directed to be paid.
Mr. Ghosh, learned advocate appearing on behalf of
the husband, submits that the wife is an income tax
assessee. That money had been given as loan to the wife
amounting to a crore. That the learned court failed to take
into consideration such facts. Bank statements of the wife
had also been filed before the learned court below.
The learned court came to the finding that the wife
did not have any income of her own.
From the documents annexed, it appears that income
tax returns for the Assessment Years 2014-15, 2015-16 and
2019-20 had been filed. In the affidavit of assets, the
2
husband himself stated that at present the wife did not have
any income of her own. It is not the case of the husband
that the wife is a pensioner. Only because the wife who was
married till 2017 had some funds or there was money in the
joint names of the parties, the same would not be relevant
for consideration as to whether the wife needs some money
every month for her sustenance. The learned court found
that the husband earned Rs.96,000/- as pension and
withdrew Rs.70,000/- from the bank. The wife, on the other
hand, earned interest of Rs.2,775/- per month from the
Senior Citizen Savings Scheme. Although the petitioner
stated that he had given money to the wife to invest in the
Senior Citizen Savings Scheme, the said fact was not taken
into consideration by the court as no documents in support
of such claim had been proved. The court found that
Rs.20000/- per month would be a reasonable maintenance
for the wife. From the affidavit of assets and liabilities it
does not appear that the petitioner has any other
dependents.
Under such circumstances, on the finding of facts
which are available from the order impugned, this court
does not find any reason to interfere with the quantum of
maintenance. Maintenance pendente lite is awarded upon
consideration of certain factors:-
a) Income of the parties.
b) Status of the parties.
3
c) Expected expenditure of the parties.
d) Liabilities of the parties.
Admittedly, both parties are senior citizens. The
expenses which the wife may incur for her livelihood would
be approximately Rs.20,000/- considering the food,
clothing, shelter and medical expenses etc. She is also
entitled to enjoy the same status as her husband.
The affidavits of assets do not suggest that the wife
has any income at present. The husband admitted that the
wife did not have any earnings at present. The husband
earns Rs.96,000/- as monthly pension.
Under such circumstances, Rs.20,000/- out of the
monthly pension of Rs.96,000/- does not appear to be
exorbitant. The quantum is reasonable. The learned court
has assessed the evidence properly.
The revisional application is accordingly disposed of
without any interference. There shall be no order as to
costs.
Parties are to act on the server copy of this order.
(Shampa Sarkar, J.)
