SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(Cal) 1185

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Shampa Dutt Paul, J.
Chinmoy Banerjee - Appellant
Versus
Soma Banerjee - Respondent
Criminal Revision No. 12 of 2020
Decided On : 15-12-2022

Advocates appeared:
Dhananjay Banerjee, Advocate, Apalok Basu, Advocate

The main legal point established in the judgment is the husband's obligation to provide financial support to the wife and minor children, as per the provisions of Section 125 of the Cr.P.C., and the factors to be considered in determining maintenance.

Headnote:

Maintenance - Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - Section 125 of Cr.P.C. - [MAINTENANCE] - [FAMILY LAW] - [Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - Section 9, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 125] - The court discussed the provisions of Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. and Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, and their application in determining maintenance. The court also referred to the guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court in Rajnesh vs. Neha (Criminal Appeal No. 730 of 2020) and highlighted the factors to be considered while awarding maintenance. The court emphasized the husband's obligation to provide financial support to the wife and minor children and the summary nature of proceedings under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C.

Fact of the Case:

The wife filed an application for maintenance under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. The husband objected, stating that the wife left her matrimonial home without just cause and regularly withdrew money from their joint account. The court initially granted interim maintenance, which was later modified by the Sessions Judge. The husband challenged the order, arguing financial hardship.

Finding of the Court:

The court considered the husband's income and the wife's financial hardship. It modified the maintenance amount, emphasizing the husband's obligation to support his wife and child. The court highlighted the summary nature of proceedings under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. and the wife's entitlement to maintenance if unable to support herself.

Issues: The main issues were the wife's entitlement to maintenance, the husband's financial capacity, and the summary nature of proceedings under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the husband's obligation to provide financial support to the wife and minor children, as per the provisions of Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. It considered the wife's financial hardship and the husband's income in determining the maintenance amount.

Final Decision: The court modified the maintenance amount, directing the husband to pay a specified sum to his wife and child each month. It highlighted the summary nature of proceedings under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. and dismissed the cost granted by the Sessions Judge.

JUDGMENT

Shampa Dutt (Paul), J. - The present revision has been preferred by the petitioner/husband against the opposite party/wife praying for setting aside of the judgment and order dated 25.09.2019 passed by the Court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 1st Court at Barrackpore in Criminal Revision no. 307 of 2019 challenging Order dated 25.09.2019 passed by the court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, 5th Court at Barrackpore in M Case no. 579 of 2018.

2. The petitioner's case in short is that the opposite party/wife filed an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barrackpore (M Case no. 579 of 2018). The petitioner/husband filed his written objection by stating that the opposite party/wife had left her matrimonial home only to go and see her paternal inmates, but subsequently filed the application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. She also took the ATM card in respect of the joint account in the name of the petitioner and opposite party and regularly withdrew money from the said account. The petitioner's case is that he is regularly depositing money in the said account and is also maintaining his wife till date. It is submitted that the statement of account will support the said contention.

3. The learned Judicial Magistrate, 5th Court, Barrackpore on 15.06.2019 initially passed an interim order of maintenance directing the petitioner/husband/father to pay a sum of Rs. 3000 per month each for his wife and minor child.

4. Being aggrieved the wife/opposite party preferred a revision before the Court of Additional District Judge, 1st Court, Barrackpore (Criminal Revision No. 307 of 2019).

5. The learned Sessions Judge modified the said order of interim maintenance passed by the learned Magistrate and directed the petitioner/husband/father to pay a sum of Rs. 7000 each to their wife and the minor child with cost of Rs. 5000.

6. It is submitted that there has been no laches on the part of the husband/petitioner and that the petitioner's wife left her matrimonial home without any just and sufficient cause. The petitioner filed an application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (Matrimonial Suit no. 1254 of 2018) in which the effort for reconciliation by the Court failed due to the unwillingness of the opposite party/wife.

7. Mr. Dhananjay Banerjee learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned Sessions Judge ought to have considered the salary of the petitioner on the basis of which the maintenance amount has been directed to be paid. It is further submitted that the conduct of the petitioner/husband regarding maintenance of his wife and his minor child is good as he is bearing all expenses by sending money through bank account and the opposite party/wife is taking money from the bank joint account by using the ATM card. The petitioner very fairly filed the statement relating to his salary account to show his actual earning but the learned Sessions Court failed to consider the financial hardship of the petitioner/husband and passed the order under challenge in a mechanical manner and as such the said order under revision is thus liable to be set aside in the interest of justice.

8. Mr. Apalok Basu, the Counsel for the Opposite Party has argued that the statement of salary account filed by the husband/petitioner before the Trial Court shows that he earns a sum of Rs. 48,295 per month and as such the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge has been passed by taking into consideration the income of the petitioner and the said order is in accordance with law and as such the revisional application is liable to be dismissed.

9. Heard learned Counsel for both sides. Considered.

10. The statement of salary account of the petitioner shows only one entry as Rs. 48,295 for the month of February, 2019. The salary for the months prior to February, 2019 and subsequent to February, 2019 are at the rate of Rs. 31,765/Rs. 31,804. From the s

          Click Here to Read the rest of this document
          1
          2
          3
          4
          5
          6
          7
          8
          9
          10
          11
          SupremeToday Portrait Ad
          supreme today icon
          logo-black

          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

          qr

          Scan Me!

          India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

          For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

          whatsapp-icon Back to top