2012 Supreme(Cal) 885
High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
PRASENJIT MANDAL, J.
Babalu Singh
Versus
Smt. Sanju Singh
C.O. No. 1898 of 2012
Decided On : 26-09-2012
For the petitioner:Debajyoti Basu, Kunal Ganguly, Advocates.
For the Respondent:Probal Kumar Mukherjee, Upendra Roy, Advocates.
The Court held that the adjustment of future maintenance under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. becomes meaningless when the husband's employer has already started deducting the maintenance amount from his salary.
Headnote:
Alimony - Hindu Marriage Act - Section 24 - The Court considered the provisions of Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, which allows for the grant of alimony pendente lite. The Court also referred to Section 125 of the Cr.P.C., which deals with the grant of maintenance in separate proceedings. The Court noted that the interim maintenance granted by the Magistrate in the Section 125 proceeding was not considered by the Trial Judge in the present case.
Fact of the Case:
Challenge to the order passed by the learned Additional District Judge in a matrimonial suit under the Hindu Marriage Act. The wife filed an application for alimony under Section 24 of the Act. The Trial Judge granted alimony pendente lite to the wife and minor daughter. The husband appealed against this order.
Finding of the Court:
The Court observed that the Trial Judge did not consider the interim maintenance granted by the Magistrate in a separate proceeding under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. The Court also noted that the husband's employer had already started deducting the maintenance amount from his salary. The Court held that the adjustment of future maintenance under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. becomes meaningless in this case. The Court referred to the decision in Sudeep Chaudhary v. Radha Chaudhary (1997) 11 SCC 286 to support its view.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court set aside the impugned order and directed the Trial Judge to hear the application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act afresh, taking into consideration the interim maintenance granted by the Magistrate and any subsequent events related to the interim order of maintenance. The Trial Judge was instructed to dispose of the application by the end of November 2012.
Result: The application was allowed and the impugned order was set aside. The Trial Judge was directed to hear the application afresh and dispose of it by the end of November 2012. No costs were awarded.
Prasenjit Mandal, J.
Challenge is to the Order No.22 dated April 11, 2012 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, 3rd Court, Hooghly in Matrimonial Suit No.624 of 2010 thereby disposing an application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act filed by the husband / petitioner herein.
2. The husband / petitioner herein instituted the aforesaid matrimonial proceeding under Section 13(1)(ia)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act. In that matrimonial suit, the wife / opposite party herein filed an application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act praying for alimony. By the impugned order, the learned Trial Judge granted alimony pendente lite at the rate of Rs.3,500/-per month for the wife and Rs.3,000/-per month for the minor daughter and litigation costs of Rs.10,000/-to the wife. Being aggrieved by such orders, the husband has preferred this application. Now, the question is whether the impugned order should be sustained.
3. Upon hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and on going through the materials on record, I find that previously, the wife / opposite party herein instituted a proceeding under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. and in that proceeding, the learned Magistrate granted interim maintenance to the tune of Rs.3,500/-per month for the wife and Rs.1,500/-per month for the minor daughter w.e.f. the date of application. While dealing with application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, the learned Trial Judge has made an observation as appearing in inner page no.s 2 & 3 of the certified copy of the impugned order on the maintenance granted by the learned Magistrate, but, while passing the final order on the said application, I find that the learned Trial Judge did not consider the interim maintenance as granted by the learned Magistrate. But, he has simply recorded in the observation that the maintenance allowance that may be granted under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. in future days shall be always adjusted with the amount of maintenance pendente lite granted by the learned Additional District Judge.
4. As per materials on record, I find that the husband / petitioner herein challenged the interim order of maintenance before the Hon’ble Court and then by an order dated August 25, 2011, this Hon’ble Court directed that the interim order of maintenance shall be stayed subject to the condition that the husband goes on paying maintenance to the wife at the rate of Rs.2,000/-per month for the wife and Rs.1,000/-per month for the child. As per materials on record, the order of attachment was issued and the Controlling Officer of the husband at his place of service had already started deduction of Rs.9,328/-per month (i.e. Rs.5,000/-as interim maintenance plus Rs.3,800/-as arrears and Rs.528/-as postal charge) from the pay and allowances of the husband / petitioner herein. This will be apparent from the papers, such as, the letter of Controlling Officer of the husband appearing at page no.19, pay slips appearing from the page no.s 21 to 25, etc. By the impugned order, the learned Trial Judge has recorded that the final outcome in the maintenance proceeding under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. in future days shall be adjusted against the amount of maintenance pendente lite granted by this Court. But, I find from the materials mentioned earlier that the employer of the husband had already started deduction for maintenance from the salary of the husband by way of attachment. So, the impugned order that adjustment against future maintenance to be awarded under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. becomes meaningless.
5. Under the circumstances, since the effect of attachment of the salary of the husband has not been taken into consideration in the impugned order, in view of the decision of Sudeep Chaudhary v. Radha Chaudhary reported in (1997) 11 SCC 286, the adjustment is essential.
6. It is not known whether the proceeding under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. or the civil revision arising from the interim order has been dispo