Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(Cal) 931

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
SHAMPA DUTT PAUL, J.
Susanta Pal –Appellant
Versus
The State of West Bengal & Anr. – Respondents
CRR 3096 of 2019 With CRAN 1 of 2019 (Old No. CRAN 4720 of 2019)
Decided on : 20-07-2023

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Ms. Debipriya Mitra, Ms. Sudakshina Dey.
For the Respondent: Mr. Binay Panda, Mr. Subham Bhakat.

In determining the quantum of maintenance under the PWDC Act, the court must consider various factors, including the status of the parties, reasonable needs of the wife and children, financial capacity of the husband, and any independent income of the wife.

Headnote:
PWDC ACT, 2005 - MAINTENANCE - INTERIM MAINTENANCE - QUANTUM - DETERMINATION - FACTORS - OVERLAPPING JURISDICTION - AVOIDANCE OF CONFLICTING ORDERS - DISCLOSURE OF ASSETS AND LIABILITIES - CRITERIA - SECTION 12 AND 23 - APPLICABILITY.
Fact of the Case:

In a revision petition challenging an interim maintenance order under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (PWDC Act), the petitioner-husband argued that the order was obtained by the respondent-wife through misleading the trial court and that she had already filed a maintenance claim under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC).
Finding of the Court:

The court held that the interim maintenance order was in accordance with law and affirmed it. It directed the trial court to decide the case finally as per the guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court in Rajnesh Vs. Neha (2021 SCC 324) and to consider various factors in determining the quantum of maintenance, including the status of the parties, reasonable needs of the wife and children, financial capacity of the husband, and any independent income of the wife.
Issues: 1. Whether the interim maintenance order was obtained by the wife through misleading the trial court? 2. Whether the wife had already filed a maintenance claim under Section 125 of the CrPC? 3. What are the factors to be considered in determining the quantum of maintenance under the PWDC Act?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the wife had not obtained the interim maintenance order by misleading the trial court, as she had disclosed her previous maintenance claim under Section 125 of the CrPC in her application under the PWDC Act. 2. The court held that the wife had indeed filed a maintenance claim under Section 125 of the CrPC, but that this claim was not relevant to the determination of the interim maintenance under the PWDC Act. 3. The court held that the factors to be considered in determining the quantum of maintenance under the PWDC Act include the status of the parties, reasonable needs of the wife and children, financial capacity of the husband, and any independent income of the wife.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the revision petition and affirmed the interim maintenance order. It directed the trial court to decide the case finally as per the guidelines laid down in Rajnesh Vs. Neha (2021 SCC 324).

JUDGMENT :

Shampa Dutt Paul, J.

1. The present revision has been preferred praying for quashing of the proceeding relating to Misc Case No. 40 of 2017, now pending for disposal before the Learned Judicial Magistrate, Amta, for the offence punishable under Section 12 and 23 of the protection of the women from Domestic Violence Act.

2. The petitioner/husband’s case is that the opposite party no. 2 was married to the petitioner accordingly to Hindu rites and customs on 24th day of Baishak 1407 B.S. and the said marriage was a negotiated one. After few days of marriage the opposite party no. 2 alleged, that she was subjected to torture by her husband, and the petitioner along with his mother are alleged to have assaulted her with a bamboo and have taken away the children of the opposite party no. 2 who are at present aged 14 years and 9 years respectively. The son of the opposite party no. 2 happens to be a special child and as the petitioner avoided to maintain his family, the parents of the opposite party no. 2 tried to intervene and solve the problem but on 20.07.2013 the opposite party no. 2 was again assaulted by the petitioner and his family. The petitioner though alleged to be earning Rs. 70,000/- (Rupees Seventy Thousand only) had deliberately neglected to maintain his family and his wife, for which the opposite party no. 2 filed an application under Sections 12 and 23 the protection of the Women from Domestic Violence Act being Misc Case no. 40 of 2017.

3. That petitioner states that the opposite party no. 2 with a malafide intention had filed the instant application for which the petitioner outrightly denied all the allegations made therein by filling a written objection to the said application.

4. The opposite party no. 2 in her written complaint ventilated false charge about the petitioner and his family stating that she was not given proper food and was alleged to have been tortured and assaulted in her matrimonial house.

5. The opposite party no.2 previously also had roped the petitioner and his parents on the said same false and frivolous complaint of mental and physical alleged torture on her in her matrimonial home on the same cause of action.

6. The opposite party no. 2 had obtained an order ex parte on 22.05.2013 vide Misc. Case No. 12 of 2013 and also filed a case under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code behind the back of the petitioner and the petitioner did not have any chance to ventilate his grievances before the Learned Court. The opposite party herself had willfully deserted her matrimonial home with her two children and though she had filed a false and frivolous case against the petitioner and his family members under Section 498A/406 of Indian Penal Code vide G.R. Case No. 1302 of 2013 before the Learned 4th Judicial Magistrate, Sreerampore, Hooghly butdue to the failure of the prosecution i.e. the opposite party no. 2’s frivolous claim to produce any substantial evidence, the Learned Magistrate was pleased to acquit the petitioner and others of the false charge by his order dated 15.05.2017.

7. The Petitioner states that the opposite party no. 2 curiously enough stated before the Learned Magistrate that the petitioner’s income happens to be Rs. 70,000/- to Rs. 1,00,000/- per month without any documentary evidence but the real fact is that the opposite party had deliberately suppressed the net income of the petitioner who happens to be a small businessman and whose income from the business is hardly Rs. 20,000/- per month.

8. Ms. Debapriya Mitra, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits the opposite party no. 2 by misleading the Learned trial Court had obtained an order of maintenances on 22.05.2013 where the Learned Magistrate directed the petitioner to make payment of Rs. 2,500/- per month to the opposite party/wife and Rs. 1,500/- per month towards the maintenance of two minor children totalling to Rs. 5,500/- per month.

9. The opposite party no. 2 in order to siphon money from the petitioner has f