The main legal point established is that maintenance allowance is determined based on the parties' income, economic requirements, and the precedent set in relevant cases. Arrear maintenance is payable from the date of the final order.

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 case, i.e., ACM 42 of 2007 was delayed mainly due to dilatory tactics adopted by the petitioner. In spite of such finding the learned Magistrate committed error in granting litigation cost to the tune of Rs.30,000/- in favour of the opposite party. Petitioner further contends that the learned Magistrate acted illegally and with material irregularity in granting maintenance allowance in favour of the opposite party from the date of filing of the application. It is also alleged by the petitioner that the opposite party/wife filed false affidavit-of-assets and liabilities only to get maintenance allowance from the petitioner. The trial court failed to invoke the provisions of Order X of the Code of Civil Procedure or 165 of the Evidence Act for assessing the truthfulness of the affidavit filed by the opposite party/wife. It is also stated by the petitioner that the aforesaid maintenance case was once dismissed for default. Subsequently, on the application filed by the opposite party the same Misc Case was restored.

3. The aforesaid maintenance case was disposed of by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate at Alipore on 3rd September, 2021. During the pendency of the said maintenance case, the opposite party/wife filed an application for execution under Section 125(3) of the Code which was registered as M. Execution Case No.455 of 2019 praying for realization of arrear maintenance from December, 2017 to July 2019.

4. By filing CRR No.1316 of 2022 the petitioner had sought for clarification as to whether the petitioner would go on paying maintenance allowance which was granted in favour of the opposite party prior to final disposal of the maintenance case or once a final order is passed by the learned trial court the same has to be followed. The said revision is also pending for disposal.

5. The petitioner also filed CRR No.2093 of 2022 before this Court challenging legality, validity and propriety of an order dated 21st May, 2022 passed in Misc Execution Case No.400 of 2021. The impugned order relates to a direction upon the petitioner to start making payment of arrear maintenance in the aforesaid Misc Execution Case with effect from 24th June, 2022. The petitioner raised an issue as to whether an execution for realization of maintenance allowance beyond 12 months can be filed by the opposite party in favour of the specific provision contained in Section 125(3) of the Cr.P.C.

6. With the consent of the parties mentioned above, all three revisions are taken up for hearing together.

7. I have heard Mrs. Anasuya Sinha, learned Advocate for the petitioner. I have also heard Ms. Subhosree Ghosh the opposite party herein who has presented her case in person.

8. It is submitted by Mrs. Sinha that the petitioner does not have any objection to pay maintenance