Back
CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
HARISH TANDON, J.
Sarmi Chatterjee
Vs
Udayan Chatterjee
C. O. No. 4093 of 2012
Decided On : 03/04/2013
ALIMONY PENDENTE LITE - HINDU MARRIAGE ACT, 1955 - SECTION 24 - QUANTUM AND COMMENCEMENT - DISCRETION OF COURT - FACTORS TO BE CONSIDERED.
Fact of the Case:
Wife filed a revisional application challenging the quantum of maintenance and the date from which alimony pendente lite was granted under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
Finding of the Court:
1. The court held that the quantum of maintenance should be determined considering the parties' social status, comforts during the conjugal period, and position in society. 2. The court found no provision in Section 24 specifying the date for payment of alimony pendente lite. 3. The court held that the commencement of alimony pendente lite depends on the facts of each case and is within the court's discretion.
Issues: 1. Whether the quantum of maintenance awarded by the trial court was commensurate with the husband's income and the parties' status. 2. Whether the alimony pendente lite should have been directed to be paid from the date of application or from the date of the order.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court relied on the Division Bench judgment in Chitra Sengupta v. Dhruba Jyoti Sengupta to determine the quantum of maintenance. 2. The court referred to the judgment in Jasbir Sehgal v. District Judge, Deradoon, to establish that the court has discretion to determine the date from which maintenance under Section 24 should be granted. 3. The court held that the trial court's discretion in awarding maintenance from the date of the order was not unreasonable or beyond legal parameters.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the revisional application, finding no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order.
This revisional application is directed against Order No. 41 dated October 10, 2012 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, 13th Court, Alipore in Miscellaneous Case No. 19 of 2011 by which an application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, is disposed of.
2. This revisional application is at the instance of the wife assailing the aforesaid order on two fold grounds. Firstly, that the quantum of maintenance granted by the Trial Court is not in commensurate with the income of the husband more particularly in relation to the status and the comforts which the parties used to avail during the conjugal period. Secondly, that the alimony pendente lite should have been directed to be paid from the date of an application and not from the date of the order.
3. Admittedly, a salary certificate was produced for the month of June, 2012 by the husband/opposite party before the Trial Court. The parties agreed for determination of the quantum of monthly alimony pendente lite on the basis of such disclosure.
4. The Trial Court found that the net monthly income of the husband/opposite party is Rs. 61,000/- and odd. Although the husband/opposite party specifically averred in the written objection that the wife has an independent income but could not prove the same in the said proceeding.
5. According to the learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner, the quantum of maintenance should be determined by the Court taking into consideration the social status of the parties, the comforts which the parties used to avail during the conjugal period and their position in the society. To buttress the aforesaid submission reliance is placed upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court in case of Chitra Sengupta v. Dhruba Jyoti Sengupta reported in AIR 1988 Calcutta 98.
6. On the other point that the monthly alimony pendente lite should be granted from the date of an application and not from the date of an order, reliance is placed upon a judgment of the co-ordinate Bench in case of Smt. Poushali Pal v. Sri Gautam Pal, reported in (2002) 2 WBLR (Cal) 182.
7. Lastly, it is submitted that the wife/petitioner is living at the mercy of her ailing parents and, therefore, the quantum of maintenance awarded by the Trial Court is too meager in proportionate to the monthly income of the husband.
8. Mr. Biswajit Basu, learned Advocate appearing for the husband/opposite party at the very outset submits that his client has not chosen to assail the said order and accepted the quantum of maintenance awarded by the Trial Court. He further submits that the monthly alimony pendente lite would reckon either from the date of application or order is within the discretion of the Court which unless appears to be unreasonable, irrational and beyond the settled legal proposition, the revisional Court should not interfere with such discretionary order. In support of the aforesaid contention he placed reliance upon a judgment rendered by this Court in case of Smit. Jayanti Basu v. Partha Basu, reported in 2012 (1) CLJ (Cal) 296.
9. He strenuously submits that no averment is made in the revisional application nor any document is annexed thereto relating to the conduct of the husband which occasioned the delay in disposing of the said application for maintenance and therefore, the revisional Court should not interfere with such discretionary order by which the monthly alimony pendente lite is awarded from the date of the order.
10. Having considered the respective submissions admittedly, the parties have proceeded with the said application under Section 24 of the said Act on the basis of the salary certificate produced by the husband/opposite party before the Trial Court.
11. There is no provision contained under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 wherefrom it could be safely gathered that an application filed under the said provision would be the date for payment of the alimony pendente lite.
12. By catena of decisions rendered in this regard a procedure is adop
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
