C.O. No. 3403 of 2018
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
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.
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
The impugned order dated August 3, 2018 is set aside.
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
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.)