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

2022 Supreme(Cal) 1222

BIBEK CHAUDHURI
Arindam Mitra – Appellant
Versus
Subhosree Mitra (nee Ghosh) – Respondent


Advocates appeared:
Anasuya Sinha, Advocate, Pallavi Priyadarshee, Advocate, Subhosree Ghosh, Advocate

Judgement Key Points

What is the basis for determining maintenance allowance under Section 125(3) Cr.P.C. in this case? What is the date from which arrear maintenance becomes payable and how is it calculated? What are the court’s conclusions regarding arrear maintenance beyond 12 months and the ongoing payment of current maintenance?

What is the basis for determining maintenance allowance under Section 125(3) Cr.P.C. in this case?

What is the date from which arrear maintenance becomes payable and how is it calculated?

What are the court’s conclusions regarding arrear maintenance beyond 12 months and the ongoing payment of current maintenance?


JUDGMENT

Bibek Chaudhuri, J. - The petitioner is the opposite party/husband in Case No.ACM 42 of 2007 under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. ACM 42 of 2007 was finally disposed of vide judgment dated 3rd September, 2021 by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Alipore, South 24 Parganas directing the petitioner/husband to pay maintenance allowance at the rate of Rs.30,000/- per month in favour of the opposite party/wife and Rs.20,000/- per month to her minor child, total being Rs.50,000/-per month along with one time litigation cost at the rate of Rs.30,000/-per month.

2. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that the opposite party has exercised beneficial legislation under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C in securing benefits for herself to which she is otherwise not entitled to in accordance with law. It is contended by the petitioner that the opposite party/wife is a practicing Advocate and she has her independent source of income. Therefore, she is not entitled to get any maintenance allowance from the opposite party. It is further contended by the petitioner that the learned Magistrate in his impugned judgment clearly held that trial of the maintenance

    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 telegram-icon
    whatsapp-icon Back to top