1
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
29-03-2017 Civil Revisional Jurisdiction
Subrata
. C.O.No.1392 of 2016
Suvra Bose
-vs-
Jayanta Kumar Bose
None …for the petitioner
Though none appears, the case is taken up for
consideration and disposal on merit after perusing the
materials available on record, including the impugned
order.
The petitioner has filed this revisional application
under Article 227 of the Constitution assailing Order No.74
dated July 29, 2015 passed by learned Additional District
Judge, 16th Court at Alipore, South 24-Parganas in Mat.
Suit No.48 of 2008.
It appears that in the matrimonial suit there was
already an order of maintenance pendente lite in favour of
the petitioner-wife. The petitioner had filed an application
under section 151 CPC dated March 2, 2015 for enhancing
the amount of maintenance pendente lite for herself as well
as for her minor daughter on and from February 14, 2013,
the same being the date of filing of the application. By the
impugned order learned trial court declined to enhance any
further amount of maintenance pendente lite with the
observations as under:-
“This Court has got no scope to modify its own order as claimed
by the petitioner. Under the circumstances, I am not inclined to allow the
instant prayer.”
2
Learned trial court rejecting the application under
section 151 CPC scheduled the matrimonial suit for
peremptory hearing.
It has already been held by this court in C.O. 2486
of 2016 with C.O. 2913 of 2016 (Soumya Majumdar
(husband) Vs. Shrestha Dhar Majumdar (wife) and C.O.
1592 of 2016 (Smt. Nandita Rani (Bhattacharjee) Vs.
Rritwik Bhattacharjee) delivered by this court respectively
on 16.03.2017 that either within the ambit of section 24 of
the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 or under section 36 of the
Special Marriage Act, 1954 there is no provision for
enhancement or making modification of the amount of
maintenance pendente lite, precisely to say any such second
prayer is not maintainable, once the application has
attained finality after settling the amount of maintenance
pendente lite upto any level, since said amount shall be
payable till disposal of the suit.
It is needless to mention that the amount of
maintenance pendente lite is settled considering living
status, source of earnings, monthly income of the party to
pay etc. to lend assistance to the applicant so that he/she
may not face any financial crisis during pendency of the
matrimonial suit as well as to maintain himself/herself
during the tenure of the suit.
This court also held earlier that enhancement or
modification in the amount of in case of permanent alimony
only is available either under section 25 of the Hindu
Marriage Act or under section 37 of the Special Marriage
3
Act and not elsewhere. Obviously by the above
observations this court does not ever mean that if in the
decision-making process if there was any lapses even in the
grant of maintenance pendente lite, then this court would
not interfere with the same.
It is only made clear that once the amount of
maintenance pendente lite has attained finality upto any
level, then the same shall remain alive till disposal of the
matrimonial suit which can be altered or modified only at
the time of decreeing suit for divorce, that too upon
application.
Therefore, learned trial court did not commit any
illegality in rejecting the application under section 151 of
the Code of Civil Procedure dated March 2, 2015 by
refusing to enhance the amount of maintenance pendente
lite wherein I find no legal reason to make interference.
The revisional application is, accordingly, dismissed
on merit.
The department is directed to forthwith
communicate a copy of this order to learned court below for
information.
Certified photostat copy of this order, if applied for,
shall be given to the parties.
(Mir Dara Sheko, J)
4
