1

09.01.2020

srm

C.O. No. 3403 of 2018

Sanjoy Datta
Vs.

Smt. Jolly Datta

Mr. Sanjib Seth
…for the Petitioner.

Mr. Dipanjan Datta,
Mr. Subhajit Chowdhury
…for the Opposite Party.

The petitioner, who is the husband in Matrimonial Suit No.26 of

2017 pending before the learned Additional District Judge, 5th Court at

Barasat, has filed this revisional application. Being aggrieved by an order

dated August 3, 2018 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, 5th

Court at Barasat by which maintenance pendente lite of Rs.15,000/‐ per

moth was awarded by the learned Court below along with Rs.12,000/‐ as

litigation costs.

It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that although the

petitioner was a qualified Civil Engineer and was working in a very

reputed organisations, but at the relevant point of time when the Misc.

Case No.84 of 2017 was disposed of, the petitioner was jobless and this

aspect was not considered by the learned Court below. It is further

submitted that the wife is a professional singer and has her own income.
2

The learned Advocate for the wife/opposite party submits that the

documents submitted by the petitioner including the Income‐Tax Return

of 2011‐12 indicate that he had an annual income of Rs.9.50 lakh

(approximately). It is denied that the opposite party/wife is a

professional singer and she is only an amateur singer.

However, these are the disputed questions of facts which cannot

be decided without trial on evidence. Admittedly, the learned Court

below passed the order impugned relying on the Income‐Tax Return of

the husband in the year 2011‐12 but did take into consideration the

present income or the defence of the husband that the husband did not

have any independent income at the moment. This Court cannot rule out

the possibility that an able‐bodied person qualified person who was

competent to work well, should maintain his estranged wife. However,

quantum should be decided in this case on evidence. Both the parties are

at liberty to adduce their evidence with regard to the present income of

the husband as also whether the wife was gainfully employed as a singer

and upon consideration of these documents and oral evidence adduced

by both the parties, the learned Court below should decide the matter

afresh.

The impugned order dated August 3, 2018 is set aside.
3

The husband/petitioner is present in Court and assures the Court

that the amounts awarded in the proceedings under Section 125 of the

Cr.P.C., that is, Rs.6,000/‐ per month from the date of the order of the

learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bidhannagar, will be

liquidated within two weeks from date. The litigation costs of Rs.12,000/‐

should also be paid within two weeks from date. Copies of receipt

showing payment of such amount shall be produced in Court. Misc.

Case No.84 of 2017 will be decided afresh and in accordance with law

within a period of two months from the date of communication of this

order.

This revisional application is, thus, disposed of.

There will be, however, no order as to costs.

The learned Advocate‐on‐record for the petitioners is directed to

serve a copy of this application along with a server copy of this order to

the opposite parties within a week.

Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be

given to the parties on priority basis.

(Shampa Sarkar, J.)