Back
2019 Supreme(Cal) 55
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
JAY SENGUPTA, J.
PRABIR KUMAR PALIT - Appellant
Versus
RUNU PALIT AND OTHERS - Respondent
Criminal Revision No. 2921 of 2014, 1002 of 2017
Decided on : 25-02-2019
Advocate Appeared:
Priyabrata Ghosh, Adv., Manik Lal Poddar, Adv., Ujjal Roy, Adv.
Constitutional right to maintenance for women and children under Section 125 of the Code, adverse presumptions for deliberate non-disclosure of income, and disregarding technical objections.
Headnote:
Maintenance - Revisional Applications - Section 125 of the Code - 22.07.2014, 04.03.2017 - The court upheld the order for monthly maintenance allowance to the wife and daughter from the date of application and directed payment of arrears by twelve equal monthly instalments.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged orders modifying the maintenance allowance and directing payment of outstanding amounts. The petitioner's advocate argued that the daughter was not initially a claimant and was employed, while the opposite party's advocate highlighted the petitioner's undisclosed income and desertion of his family.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner's deliberate non-disclosure of income and technical objections did not justify denying maintenance to the wife and daughter. The court upheld the maintenance allowance and directed payment of arrears by twelve equal monthly instalments.
Issues: Dispute over maintenance allowance, claimant's employment, petitioner's undisclosed income, and desertion of family.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the constitutional right to maintenance for women and children, disregarding technical objections and drawing adverse presumptions for deliberate non-disclosure of income.
Final Decision: The revisional applications were dismissed, and the court upheld the maintenance allowance and directed payment of arrears by twelve equal monthly instalments. No costs were awarded.
JAY SENGUPTA, J.
1. The two revisional applications being CRR No. 2921/14 and CRR No. 1002/17 were taken up together for final hearing as the same were connected ones. The petitioner filed the revisional application being CRR No. 2921/14 (the revision of 2014, for short) challenging an order dated 22.07.2014 passed by the Learned Additional Sessions Judge, 17th Court, Alipore, South 24 Paraganas in Criminal Motion No. 01/14, thereby, modifying the original of order dated 09.10.2013 passed by the Learned Judicial Magistrate, 8th Court, Alipore, South 24 Paraganas in Misc Case No. 649/09 under Section 125 of the Code and directing the petitioner to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs. 10,000/- to the present opposite party no. 1 for herself and Rs. 7000/- per month for her daughter/added opposite party no. 3 from the date of filing of the application i.e., 28.10.2009. The said petitioner subsequently filed a revisional application being CRR No. 1002/17 (the revision of 2017, for short), thereby challenging an order dated 04.03.2017 passed by the Learned Judicial Magistrate, 8th Court, Alipore, South 24 Paraganas in M.Ex. Case No. 67/13, thereby directing the cashier to allow the present opposite party no. 1 to withdraw Rs. 40,000/- from cash and further directing the present petitioner "to pay Rs. 60,000/- outstanding, Rs. 17000/- arrear for the next three months." The Learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that although initially the Learned Judicial Magistrate also granted payment of a monthly maintenance allowance to the petitioner's son, the same was anulled by the revisional order passed by the Learned Additional Sessions Judge as the son had attained majority at the time of passing of the order.
2. As regards the revision of 2014, the Learned Advocate for the petitioner submitted that at the time of filing of the original application under Section 125 of the Code, the daughter being the added opposite party no. 3 herein was not the claimant. The opposite party no. 1 being the mother of the added opposite party no. 3 had claimed the sum of maintenance on behalf of the latter. He submitted that this is an incurable irregularity and would disentitle the petitioner's daughter from getting any maintenance from the petitioner. Besides, the opposite party no. 3 was employed and was earning sufficiently. He submitted that the opposite party had received money several times from the petitioner. He contended that the opposite party no. 1 actually resided in the house of the husband/petitioner for about four years in the Andaman and Nicobar islands. The Learned Advocate further submitted that although maintenance allowance was made payable from the date of application, there was no reason recorded by the Learned Revisional Court for the same.
3. As regards the revision of 2017, the Learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that in terms of the orders passed, all payments had been made. According to him, as on the date of the passing of the impugned order in the execution case, the amount that remained payable in respect of the execution case had been duly paid.
4. The Learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the opposite party nos. 1 and 3 submitted that as regards the revision of 2014, it may be germane to note that the present petitioner was a doctor and a very high ranking government servant. He earned huge sums of money. He submitted that the petitioner never disclosed his income in the impugned proceedings. According to a reply to an application made by the opposite party no. 1 under the Right to Information Act, the petitioner's pay slip showed that he had a gross salary of Rs. 1,76,506/- as in October, 2015. The Learned Advocate submitted that the petitioner had deserted his wife because of his adulterous affair with a nurse, which he did not even deny, as would be evident from a reading of the order of the Learned original Court. He submitted that in fact the petitioner desert
