SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Smt. Jhimli Banerjee vs Sri Babul Banerjee on 4 July, 2019


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

falls due.

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.)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Copyright © 2021 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation