SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Sourav Halder vs Swagata Halder on 11 March, 2020

1

Sn 11.3.2020 C.O. 2745 of 2019
681
SOURAV HALDER VS. SWAGATA HALDER
(MUKHERJEE)
With

C.O.2699 of 2019
SWAGATA HALDER (MUKHERJEE)VS.SOURAV
HALDER

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
C.O. 2745/2019)

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
2

petitioner/wife.

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

husband.

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
3

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

her claim.

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.
4

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
5

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.

(Shampa Sarkar,J.)

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