Sn 19.12.19 C.O. 4053 of 2019
SUDIPENDRANATH CHATTERJEE VS. ARPITA
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
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