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

2023 Supreme(Cal) 1114

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
SHAMPA DUTT (PAUL), J.
Samir Sarkar – Petitioner
Versus
The State of West Bengal and Another – Respondents
CRR Nos. 553, 1420 of 2020, CRAN No. 1 of 2020
Decided On : 20-06-2023

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioners: Kallol Mondal, Krishan Ray, Souvik Das, Ankit Agarwal.
For the Respondents: Anamitra Banerjee, Ayan Mondal, Shamsher Ansari, Sujata Das.

A wife's claim for maintenance under Section 125 of the CrPC is not barred due to her earning income.

Headnote:

MAINTENANCE - SECTION 125 CRPC - QUANTUM OF MAINTENANCE - FACTORS - OVERLAPPING JURISDICTION - SUCCESIVE CLAIMS - ADJUSTMENT - DISCLOSURE OF ASSETS AND LIABILITIES - WIFE LEFT BEHIND CHILD WITH SPECIAL NEEDS WITH HUSBAND - ISSUE OF MAINTENANCE TO BE DECIDED IN ACCORDANCE WITH GUIDELINES LAID DOWN BY SUPREME COURT IN RAJNESH VS. NEHA - WIFE'S CLAIM FOR MAINTENANCE NOT BARRED DUE TO HER EARNING INCOME.

Fact of the Case:

Petitioner challenged the order of the trial court granting maintenance to the wife under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) on the ground that the wife had left the petitioner's house on her own without just and sufficient reason and had her own source of income. The wife filed a cross-revision petition seeking enhancement of the quantum of interim maintenance granted by the same order.

Finding of the Court:

The court observed that the wife had left behind her child with special needs with the husband and left her matrimonial home with the healthy child on her own, without just and sufficient reasons. The court also noted that the wife had certain income and that the husband had to look after his aged parents and a disabled child.

Issues: 1. Whether the wife was entitled to maintenance under Section 125 of the CrPC despite having her own source of income? 2. Whether the quantum of maintenance granted by the trial court was appropriate?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the wife's claim for maintenance was not barred due to her earning income. The court relied on the Supreme Court's judgment in Rajnesh vs. Neha, which held that the mere fact that the wife is earning some income would not be a sufficient ground to deny her claim for maintenance. 2. The court further held that the quantum of maintenance granted by the trial court was appropriate, considering the factors laid down in Rajnesh vs. Neha.

Final Decision: The court dismissed the husband's revision petition and the wife's cross-revision petition. The court directed the trial court to decide the case finally as per the directions in the body of the judgment and make all endeavour to dispose of the case finally as expeditiously as possible.

JUDGMENT :

SHAMPA DUTT (PAUL), J.

1. The present revision has been preferred praying for quashing of the proceedings being Misc. Case No. 173 of 2019 under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate, 3rd Court, Barrackpore, North 24 Parganas.

2. The petitioner's case is that the petitioner got married to the opposite party no. 2 on 11.02.2005 according to Hindu Rites and Customs. The first child was born out of the said wedlock on 11.05.2007. The said marriage is still subsisting.

3. In December, 2008 the wife of the petitioner left her matrimonial home along with her minor handicapped child and since then she is living with her parents. When the petitioner contacted the opposite party no. 2 to know about the issue, the parents of the opposite party no. 2 asked the petitioner to leave his house and to stay with the opposite party no. 2 and their minor child in a rented place near the parental home of the opposite party no. 2, at Ghola, Sodepur.

4. That after several fruitless efforts to resolve the issue, the petitioner served a letter to resume conjugal life with the opposite party no. 2, through his advocate, dated 21.08.2009. In reply to the said letter, the opposite party no. 2 also served a letter through her advocate, dated 02.09.2009, where the proposal of renting a house in Ghola, near the parental home of the opposite party no. 2 was mentioned again.

5. When all these efforts of resuming the conjugal life, and having his minor son back from the parental house of the opposite party no. 2 failed, the petitioner, with no alternative, filed a petition under Section 97 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, before the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate, Ranaghat being Misc. Petition No. 1071 of 2009. Written objection was filed on behalf of the opposite party no. 2 in the said case, where it was claimed that the opposite party no. 2 is staying with her parents at her own will. After hearing both the parties, the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate, Ranaghat opined that there is no reason to proceed further and the case was filed (disposed).

6. Thereafter, the opposite party no. 2, filed an application claiming maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the learned Judicial Magistrate, 2nd Court, Barrackpore, being Misc. Case No. 510 of 2009. In the said proceeding, by an order dated 06.10.2010, payment of an interim maintenance of Rs.1500/-to wife and Rs.2500/-to the child was directed upon the petitioner. The petitioner filed a revisional application before the High Court at Calcutta, challenging the order dated 06.10.2010 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 2nd Court, Barrackpore, being C.R.R. No. 44 of 2011, and by an order dated 15.03.2011, this Hon'ble Court was pleased to reduce the amount of interim maintenance to the extent of Rs.1500/-each to the wife and the child. The proceeding under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, is still pending.

7. Subsequently, by an order dated 10.02.2017, the learned Judicial Magistrate, 2nd Court, Barrackpore was pleased to pass an order, where Misc. Case No. 510 of 2009 was dismissed for non prosecution.

8. In the proceeding in Misc. Case No. 510 of 2009, the opposite party no. 2 was examined as prosecution witness no. 1, and she specifically stated in her cross examination that, she is willing to go back to her husband, but she does not want to stay at her matrimonial home. Later, in the same cross examination she stated that she would go to her matrimonial house but only if the petitioner arranges the provisions required for her parents.

9. On 17.12.2009 the petitioner filed a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, being Matrimonial Suit No. 898 of 2009, before the learned District and Sessions Judge, Krishnagar, Nadia.

10. It is submitted by the petitioner that the case of the opposite party no. 2 is that she was thrown out from her matrimonial home after being tortured in the year of 2008

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

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