SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Sudipendranath Chatterjee vs Arpita on 19 December, 2019


Sn 19.12.19 C.O. 4053 of 2019


Ms. Sananda Ganguly
..for the petitioner
Mr. Tapan Kumar Jana
..for the opposite party

This is an application filed by the husband in

M.A.T. 8 of 2019. The husband/petitioner is aggrieved by an

order dated August 31, 2019 passed by the learned

Additional District Session Judge, 2nd Fast Track Court,

Alipore 24 parganas(South), by which, the maintenance

pendente lite was enhanced to Rs.15,000/‐ per month instead

of Rs.10,000/‐ per month on the application of the wife for

enhancement of maintenance pendente lite which was

awarded in 1917. The application filed by the petitioner for

modification of the maintenance was rejected.

The Court has taken into consideration the price

escalation and has disbelieved the contention of the husband

that he was not in a position to maintain his wife and pay the

amount of Rs.10,000/‐. The Court has also disbelieved that

the husband has a meagre income of Rs.11,800/‐ per month

as a Guest Lecturer in Rabidra Bharati University. The

husband/petitioner also filed an application for reduction of

maintenance from Rs.10,000/‐ to Rs.2,000/‐ and the said

application was dismissed by the order impugned.

It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that

although he was a Music Teacher in Delhi Public School,

Mega City, Kolkata and later in Saint Augustin School, he

lost his job and at present he was only a Guest Lecturer in

Rabindra Bharati University.

The Income Tax return filed in the proceeding by

the husband also indicates that his income was Rs. 11,800/‐

per month. It is further stated that the petitioner has to look

after his parents and pay health insurance premium.

The learned Court below came to a finding that

although the petitioner has stated that he lost his job in Delhi

Public School in Mega City, Kolkata or with Saint Augustin

School, he could not produce any documents to show that he

was released from the said schools, whereas, his wife

contended that the he was continuing as a Music Teacher

(Part Time) in the said school.

Today, during the course of hearing, it is alleged

on behalf of the wife that the petitioner was continuing his

job in the Delhi Public School. Several documents were

placed which show that the petitioner was a violinist in

Kolkata and performed at different concerts at well‐known


According to the wife/opposite party, the

amount of Rs.15,000/‐ awarded by the Court upon

enhancement of the sum of Rs.10,000/‐, was not

unreasonable and the husband was in a position to pay the

said amount. Admittedly, those documents were not

produced before the learned Court below. It is also a fact that

the evidence was recorded with regard to these contentions

of the wife that the husband was continuing to earn a lot

more that what has been admitted by the husband.

The order dated August 31, 2019 passed by the

learned Additional District Judge, 2nd Fast Track Court,

Alipore 24 parganas(South) is set aside, inasmuch as, in my

opinion evidence should be recorded as to whether the

petitioner/husband was actually earning from different

sources .

The learned Additional District Judge, 2nd Fast

Track Court, Alipore 24 parganas(South) is directed to hear

out the application filed by the wife/opposite party for

enhancement of maintenance pendente lite and the

application of the husband for modification of the alimony

awarded earlier afresh, upon giving an opportunity of

hearing to both the parties to adduce additional evidence by

filing document and also to adduce oral evidence in

accordance with law. Such decision should be taken by the

learned Court below within a period of two months from the

date of communication of this order.

As an interim arrangement, the petitioner will

continue to pay Rs.15,000/‐, as directed by the learned Court

below till the decision of the learned Court below. After the

decision of the learned Court below, if it appears that any

excess amount has been paid on the basis of the order dated

August 31, 2019 then the same will be adjusted.

Under such circumstances, this revisional

application is disposed of.

There will be however no order as to costs.

Urgent photostat certified copy of this order be

given to the parties on priority basis, if the same is applied


(Shampa Sarkar,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