SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Smt. Sarbani Guha Nee Ghosh vs Samik Guha on 3 March, 2020

1

03.03.2020

srm

C.O. No. 547 of 2020

Smt. Sarbani Guha nee Ghosh
Vs.

Samik Guha

Mr. Tapas Kumar Mukherjee,
Mr. Subhasis Jana,
Mr. Subrata Kumar Das
…for the Petitioner.

Mr. Aniket Mitra
…for the Opposite Party.

This is an application filed by the wife in Mat. Suit No. 60 of 2012,

pending before the learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track, 1st

Court, Alipore, 24‐Parganas (South). The petitioner has challenged the

order dated December 23, 2019 passed in Misc. Case No.03 of 2014. By

the order impugned, the learned Court below disposed of the

application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, directing the

husband to pay maintenance pendente lite of Rs.2,000/‐ for the wife and

Rs.2,000/‐ for the child, totalling to Rs.4,000/‐ along with an onetime

litigation costs of Rs.6,000/‐.

Mr. Mukherjee, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the

petitioner, submits that the order suffers from material irregularity,
2

inasmuch as the maintenance pendente lite was awarded without taking

into consideration the income and the financial potentiality of the

husband. He further submits that maintenance should have been

granted from the date of filing of the application under Section 24 of the

Hindu Marriage Act and not from the date of the order.

Mr. Mukherjee, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the

husband, submits that the husband was employed as a medical

representative earlier, but he had resigned from the job. He further

submitted that the husband was no longer an agent of Hindustan

Unilever. That the husband was an LIC agent and earned commission

from Vestige Group. He submits that the husband’s income was not

more than 10,000/‐ per month.

In the application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, the

wife had categorically stated that the husband was working as a medical

representative and also an agent of Vestige Group. Further to the

aforementioned engagements, the husband was engaged as an LIC agent

and the total income of the husband is Rs.55,000/‐ per month. It is further

averred that in a proceeding under Section 125 of the Code of Civil

Procedure, Rs.4,000/‐ was awarded by the learned Court for the

maintenance of the wife and the child. The wife claimed maintenance
3

pendente lite of Rs.15,000/‐ per month for herself and Rs.12,000/‐ for the

child. It has also been averred that the child goes to a convent school and

fees were over Rs.5,000/‐ per month.

In the written objection filed by the husband, the husband has

stated that he did not work as a medical representative, nor was he an

agent of Hindustan Unilever Limited. It has been stated that the

monthly income of the husband was Rs.3,000/‐ per month and as such

the question of payment of Rs.27,000/‐ per month as maintenance

pendente lite did not arise.

The learned Court below upon considering the pleadings had

come to the conclusion that admittedly the wife has no income and the

husband failed to prove that the wife was employed. The learned Court

further held that the husband failed to prove his income.

The evidence also reveals that the school fees of the child was

quite high. The expenses of the child for books and other stationary etc.

was also proved by the wife. The husband stated in his examination‐in‐

chief that he was working in Vestige Marketing Private Limited of

which he and his mother were Distributor. The fact that the husband

was an agent of L.I.C. is also on record. However, the husband failed to

prove before the learned Court below that what was his actual income.
4

Records reveal that the mother was an employee under the Income Tax

Department and she was a pensioner.

The husband has also stated that he was a marketing

representative of Amway and Vestige Marketing Pvt. Ltd. although he

did not have fixed salary. It also appears that the house where the

husband resided was a tenanted house and there was no income from

the same.

Record reveals that the husband’s parents were not dependent on

the husband. It is an admitted fact that the husband is a Distributor on

the Vestige Private Limited and also an agent of L.I.C.

Under such circumstances, the financial ability of the husband as

it appears from the record was definitely more than what was

considered by the learned Court below.

It is an admitted position that maintenance pendente lite should be

calculated on the basis of income of the husband and taking into

consideration several parameters, that is, food, clothing, shelter, medical

expenses, educational expenses of the child, rent, utility bills and also

the status and standard of living of the parties.
5

Under such circumstances, Rs. 2,000/‐ per month for the wife and

Rs.2,000/‐ per month for the school going child of about 12/13 years is

nominal and not sufficient.

The wife is entitled to maintenance pendente lite of Rs.3,000/‐ per

month for herself and Rs.3,000/‐ per month for the child payable from

the date of application under Section 125 of the Hindu Marriage Act.

The arrears will be adjusted with the amount already paid

pursuant to the direction by the learned Court below in the proceeding

under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

First of such payment be made within March 10, 2020 and

thereafter within 10th of every subsiding month. The arrears should be

paid in 10 equal monthly instalments month by month beginning from

April, 2020 along with the monthly amount as directed till the entire

arrears are liquidated.

This revisional application is disposed of.

There will be however no order as to costs.

The petitioner is directed to serve a copy of the revisional

application along with server copy of this order upon the opposite

party within a week from date.

6

Urgent photostat certified copy of this order be given to the

parties on priority basis, if the same is applied for.

(Shampa Sarkar, J.)

Leave a Reply

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

Copyright © 2020 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