sandip C.O. No. 2930 of 2017
Ct. 21 C.O. No. 2931 of 2017
Smt. Jhimli Banerjee
Sri Babul Banerjee
Mr. Sukanta Chakraborty … for the petitioner.
Mr. Sounak Bhattacharyya,
Mr. Chandranath Sarkar … for the opposite party.
Ms. Shila Sarkar … Special Officer.
The opposite party filed a suit seeking
dissolution of his marriage with the petitioner by a
decree of divorce. In the said suit the petitioner was
initially awarded a sum of Rs. 4000/- per month on
account of alimony pendente lite. The said amount was
subsequently enhanced to Rs. 6000/- per month on
the prayer of the petitioner.
An application for further enhancement of
alimony pendente lite was filed by the petitioner which
has been disposed of by the learned trial Judge by the
Order No. 206 dated January 21, 2017 by directing the
husband to pay alimony pendente lite at the rate of Rs.
7,000/- per month instead of Rs. 6,000/-. A litigation
costs of Rs. 3,000/- has also been awarded to the
petitioner by the said order. The said order is under
challenge in C.O. No. 2931 of 2017.
The petitioner filed a separate application in the
said suit praying enhancement of the alimony pendente
lite for the daughter of the parties. The learned trial
Judge by the Order No. 205 dated January 21, 2017
disposed of the said application by directing the
husband to pay a total sum of Rs. 8,000/- for two
months at the rate of Rs. 4,000/- per month as the
daughter would be completing her Higher Secondary
Examination within the said period. The said order is
under challenge in C.O. No. 2930 of 2017.
Both the applications are taken up together for
The grievance of the petitioner is that the
learned trial Judge has quantified an amount of
alimony pendente lite without considering the income
of the husband. The further grievance of the petitioner
is that the learned trial Judge has committed a grave
error in granting the alimony pendente lite to the
daughter at the enhanced rate for two months only.
Mr. Bhattacharyya, learned counsel appearing
on behalf of the opposite party files the salary
certificate of his client for the month of May, 2019
which has been taken on record, wherefrom it appears
that the opposite party is an Assistant Director of State
Forensic Science Laboratory, Government of West
Bengal and his gross salary for the month of May 2019
is Rs. 84,872/- and after admissible statutory
deductions, his net salary is Rs. 56,592/- per month.
The learned trial Judge has exercised
jurisdiction not vested in him in limiting the enhanced
amount of alimony for the daughter for two months
inasmuch as the maintenance of the wife is not the
wife alone and is includes maintenance of her
dependent unmarried daughter. (See. Jasbir Kaur
Sehgal Vs. District Judge, Dehradun and others
reported in (1997) 7 SCC 7)
Considering the financial and social status of
the opposite party, I think a consolidate amount of Rs.
17,000/- per month would be just and proper
maintenance pendente lite for the petitioner and the
daughter of the parties.
The opposite party is directed to pay to the
petitioner a consolidated sum of Rs. 17000/- per
month with effect from July 2019.
The opposite party is required to pay the said
amount of alimony pendente lite to the petitioner
within Seventh of each succeeding month for which it
So far as the arrear amount of alimony
pendente lite is concerned, the opposite party has
already paid a sum of Rs. 1,80,000/- to the petitioner
in terms of the order passed in the present matters. He
is required to pay a further sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- to
liquidate all the arrear alimony pendente lite within a
period of two weeks from date.
The daughter of the parties is a college going
Mr. Bhattacharyya, learned advocate appearing
on behalf of the opposite party submits that his client
is ready and willing to bear the educational expenses
and the medical expenses of the daughter, if the
daughter approaches the father directly and can
substantiate her claims.
This Court appreciates such good gesture of the
opposite party and grants liberty to the daughter of the
parties to approach the father/opposite party for
financial or other assistance but to get financial
assistance the daughter is required to substantiate her
requirement before the father.
The learned trial Judge is directed to expedite
the hearing of the suit and shall make all endeavour to
conclude the hearing of the same within a period of
eight months from the date of communication of this
order. The learned trial Judge to adhere to the time
limit fixed by this order for disposal of the suit shall not
entertain the prayer for any unnecessary adjournment
of both parties.
With the above, C.O. No. 2930 of 2017 and
C.O. No. 2931 of 2017 are disposed of.
This Court acknowledges the assistance of Ms.
Shila Sarkar, learned advocate, the Special Officer
appointed in this matter in exploring the possibility of
the settlement of dispute between the parties and she
is hereby discharged.
Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if
applied for, be supplied to the parties subject to
compliance with all requisite formalities.
(Biswajit Basu, J.)