Sn 11.3.2020 C.O. 2745 of 2019
SOURAV HALDER VS. SWAGATA HALDER
C.O.2699 of 2019
SWAGATA HALDER (MUKHERJEE)VS.SOURAV
Mr. Biswajit Konar
..for the petitioner in
(C.O. 2745/2019 O.P. in
C.O.2699 of 2019)
Mr. Arnab Roy
..for the petitioner in
(C.O.2699 of 2019 O.P.in
The revisional application bearing No. C.O. 2699 of
2019 has been filed by the wife challenging an order dated July
2, 2019 passed in Misc.Case No. 160 of 2018 arising out of
Matrimonial Suit No.393 of 2018.
The learned Additional District Judge, Third Court
at Barasat, North 24 Parganas, passed an order dated July 2,
2019 awarding Rs.7,000/‐ per month as maintenance for the
minor girl child with effect from the date of application under
Section 36 of the Special Marriage Act, but refused to pass any
order of maintenance pendente lite in respect of the
Aggrieved, the petitioner has preferred this
revisional application on the ground that the learned Court
below by placing reliance on documents which were filed after
the hearing of the application under Section 36 of the Special
Marriage Act by way of firisti, passed the order impugned
without granting any opportunity to the petitioner/wife to deal
with the said documents or counter the documents filed by the
It also appears from the order impugned that the
learned Court below relied on those documents, namely,
documents showing mutation of the wife’s name with regard
to shop room, tutorial home of the wife under the name of
‘Mukherjee Tutorial’ and came to a conclusion that the wife
had sufficient income to maintain herself.
The learned Court below took into consideration
the enrolment date of the husband with the Bar Council and
arrived at a further conclusion that a junior advocate could not
earn Rs.1.5 lakhs per month, as alleged by the wife. It is
imperative that the learned Court below should allow the
parties to file objections and deal with all documents produced
before the learned Court below, which may be used in the
proceedings as evidence.
Under such circumstances, the grievance of the
wife is justified. The wife should have been given an
opportunity to deal with all documents produced by the
husband and also to produce counter documents in support of
Under such circumstances, the order dated July 2,
2019 is quashed and set aside.
The documents filed by the husband have been
handed over to the wife. The wife will file appropriate
objections annexing other documents in support of her claim.
Parties are at liberty to adduce evidence in respect
of their claim and counter claim.
The application under Section 36 of the Special
Marriage Act will be heard afresh. The wife will file the
objection along with her documents within 10 days from date.
The learned Court below will dispose of the
application within two months thereafter.
This revisional application is disposed of.
There will be however no order as to costs.
In re : C.O. 2745 of 2019
The revisional application bearing C.O.2745 of 2019
is an application filed by the father/ husband also being
aggrieved by the order dated July 2, 2019 passed by the learned
Court below in the same proceeding.
The petitioner is aggrieved by quantum of
maintenance awarded to the child of Rs.7,000/‐ per month. It is
contended that the learned Court below ought to have come to
a specific finding with regard to the expenditure incurred for
food, clothing, shelter, school fees, medical expenses and
miscellaneous expenses of the child before awarding Rs.7,000/‐
per month as maintenance pendente lite.
The order dated July 2, 2019 has already been
quashed and set aside. The learned Court below has been
directed to hear out the application for maintenance pendente
lite afresh. Thus the application shall be heard on all points
including the quantum to be paid to the minor girl. Parties are
at liberty to adduce evidence both oral and documentary on
the expenditure of the child.
This revisional application is also disposed of.
Urgent photostat certified copy of this order be
given to the parties on priority basis, if the same is applied for.