IMPORTANT POINT
The court ruled that existing maintenance obligations must be considered when determining new maintenance amounts, especially in light of the petitioner's age and health.

JUDGMENT :

Shampa Dutt (Paul), J.

1. The present revision has been preferred against an order dated 31st January, 2023 passed by the Learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Calcutta in connection with Miscellaneous Case No. 67 of 2011 under Section 125 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, thereby directing the Petitioner to pay maintenance to the tune of Rs. 30,000/- per month to the Opposite Party No.2 from the date of filing of this case within first 10 days of each succeeding month.

2. The parties were married, as per the petitioner in the year 1975 and as per the opposite party in the year 1972. The parties have been divorced (under challenge) since 1986. It is admitted that in a matrimonial proceeding, the opposite party no. 2 gets Rs.7,000/- per month as maintenance from the petitioner. It is also admitted that in another proceeding, the divorced daughter aged about 46 years also get a monthly maintenance of Rs.15,000/- from the petitioner. Thus a total sum of Rs. 22,000/- as maintenance is being paid by the petitioner in the proceedings other than the present proceeding.

3. The present proceeding before the Family Court being Misc. Case No. 67 of 2011 is a proceeding under Section 125 Cr.P.C. wherein the learned Judge of the Family Court finally disposed of the said case, granting a monthly maintenance of Rs.30,000/- per month to the opposite party no. 2/wife by an order dated 31st January, 2023 without taking into consideration the amount of maintenance already being received by the opposite party no. 2, from the petitioner in other proceedings (which is against the guidelines in (Rajnesh vs. Neha & Anr.) 2021 (2) SCC 324).

4. By way of an Affidavit-in-Opposition, the opposite party has submitted that the parties were married on 28.09.1972. A (female) child was born out of the said wedlock on 28.12.1975. The petitioner set up a business as an astrologer and then started an illicit relationship with one Gopa Shastri (present wife).

5. The Opposite Party/wife along with her daughter were allegedly driven out in 1977 after being tortured.

6. The petitioner/husband instituted a matrimonial suit being no. 134 of 1978, which continued for 8 long years and was then dismissed for non-prosecution on 13.08.1985.

7. The Opposite Party No. 2 later came to know of the dissolution of her marriage, which the petitioner acquired by forging her signature in (another) Matrimonial Suit being 140 of 1985 (vide order dated 25.03.1986).

8. On the said signature being sent for examination by a handwriting expert as directed by the family Court it was opined that the signature is ‘forged’. On the petitioner/husband challenging the said report, his prayer was dismissed.

9. It is further stated that in spite of having sufficient means, the Opposite Party is not being given any maintenance by the petitioner.

10. In reply, the petitioner has denied the Opposite Party’s case.

11. The following judgments have been relied upon by the Opposite Party:-

(i) Captain Ramesh Chander Kaushal vs Mrs. Veena Kaushal and Ors., (1978) 4 SCC 70, decided on April 27, 1978/August 22, 1978.

(ii) Kiran Tomar & Ors. vs State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr., 2023 (1) Indian Civil Cases 184 (S.C.), decided on 31.10.2022.

(iii) Dr. Swapan Kumar Banerjee vs The State of West Bengal & Anr., in Criminal Appeal No(s). 232-233 of 2015, decided on September 19, 2019.

(iv) Vinny Parmvir Parmar vs Parmvir Parmar, (2011) 13 SCC 112, decided on July 20, 2011.

12. Both sides have filed their Written Arguments.

13. Admittedly the petitioner (presently) is aged more than 70 years and suffering from various ailments. His being able bodied at this age and his source of income from his profession is not what a young person would be able to do.

14. This Court as an interim measure had vide order dated 31.08.2023 directed as follows:-

“………. From the affidavit of assets also, the petitioner does not appear to have a substantial income at this age to pay a monthly maintenance of Rs.30,000/- in addition to t