SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Smt.Nandita Ram(Bhattacharjee) vs Rritwik Bhattacharjee on 24 March, 2017

1

24.03.2017
kc. 48
C.O.1592 of 2016

Smt.Nandita Ram(Bhattacharjee)
Vs.

Rritwik Bhattacharjee

None appears on behalf of the petitioner/wife eventually no compliance

report has submitted in terms of order dated 6th June, 2016. Since the revisional

application being C.O.1592 of 2016 arose out of an application under Article 227

of the Constitution of India assailing order no.11 dated 15th March, 2016 passed

by the learned Additional District Judge, 7th Court at Barasat in Matrimonial Suit

No.109 of 2019 (Nandita Ram (Bhattacharjee) by which learned Additional

District Judge directed to make payment of maintenance pendente lite in favour

of the petitioner, payable by the husband/opposite party with effect from the date

of application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act apart from direction to

pay Rs.5,000/- as litigation costs, the matter is taken up for disposal on merit.

From the ground as contended in the revisional application, the petitioner

due to price hike of the essential commodities and having regard to income of her

husband allegedly averred in the pleading claimed the amount of maintenance

pendente lite as insufficient. However, if we look back to the Section 24 of the

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 or even Section 36 of the Special Marriage Act, 1954

then it transpires that it provides grant of maintenance pendente lite upon

application of either of these spouses. One proviso also has been appended to

such Section 24 or Section 36(supra) mandating the obligation upon the Court to
2

dispose of such application bearing prayer of maintenance of pendente lite is

reasonably as possible within a period of 60 days. Since apart from those

provisions there is no other indication in the law that the awarded sum can be

enhanced than the sum granted by the learned trial Court exercising its

jurisdiction upon hearing both sides. The maintainability of the revisional

application itself to my mind is at stake.

It can be reiterated that the force of maintenance of pendente lite comes to

an end on completion of the matrimonial suit. If any such matrimonial suit for

divorce ends with the decree of divorce in that event learned trial Court again

upon application may think of providing permanent alimony within the ambit of

Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act or under Section 37 of the Special Marriage

Act whichever will be applicable. In that case only there is the scope of

modification by way of enhancing or otherwise with the aid of sub-sections (2)

and (3), appended to Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act or Section 37 of the

Special Marriage Act.

By the above observations this Court does not mean that Section 24 or

Section 36 of the respective Act has ousted this Court from entertaining the

likewise application for passing order on either way. What this Court wants to

indicate that when such a proceeding providing maintenance pendente lite once

attained finality upto any level by disposal of the application, any 2nd application
3

for enhancement in such amount or otherwise during pendency of the suit is not

permissible.

However, while learned trial Court after considering all pros and cons has

decided the amount towards maintenance pendente lite payable by the husband

@ Rs.2,000/- and litigation costs to the tune of Rs.5,000/-, in the decision-

making process the same cannot be captioned as any act of illegality, far to

speak of perverseness. This Court on the lis of maintainability of the application

proposing enhancement of the amount of maintenance pendente lite has already

decided in the case of C.O.2486 of 2016 with C.O.2913 of 2016. Therefore, within

the ambit under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, therebeing no lapses in

recording the impugned order this Court finds no merit to make any interference

with the same. Therefore, the revisional application is accordingly dismissed on

merit.

Department is directed to communicate this order to the learned trial

Court with direction to expedite the suit in accordance with law.

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

the parties, as early as possible.

(MIR DARA SHEKO,J.)
4

Leave a Reply

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


Not found ...? HOW TO WIN 498a, DV, DIVORCE; Search in Above link

All Law documents and Judgment copies
Laws and Bare Acts of India
Landmark SC/HC Judgements
Rules and Regulations of India.

STUDY REPORTS

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