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

2025 Supreme(Cal) 989

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Bibhas Ranjan De, J.
Amar Kumar Pal – Petitioner  
Versus 
Sutapa Bhadra - Respondent
C.R.R. 4188 of 2024, IA No: CRAN 2 of 2025, CRAN 4 of 2025, CRR 697 of 2024
Decided On :25-09-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Ayan Bhattacharya, Adv., Mr.Nahid Ahmed, Adv.
For the Respondent: Ms. Jharna Biswas, Adv.

A ruling affirmed that maintenance can be enhanced under Section 127 of the CrPC after permanent alimony, emphasizing the need for consideration of changing circumstances.

Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure - Section 125 and Section 127 - Maintenance proceedings - The Judicial Magistrate directed an increase in maintenance to Rs. 30,000/- per month despite prior permanent alimony; determined that maintenance under different statutes is permissible with changes in circumstances - The Magistrate recognized the necessity of considering the respondent's needs and the husband's increased earnings- The applicant's previous applications were not disregarded, emphasizing the importance of timely compliance and disclosure in maintenance claims. (Paras 10, 21, 24, 26)

(B) Principles of Maintenance - Encapsulated in Rajnesh vs. Neha - The court upheld that subsequent applications for enhancement of maintenance can occur even after permanent alimony is awarded if conditions change, advocating for support reflective of current circumstances and needs. (Paras 16, 21, 26)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner husband challenged enhancement of maintenance awarded to the wife from Rs. 14,000/- to Rs. 30,000/- based on a previous permanent alimony ruling and alleged procedural irregularities during the enhancement process (Paras 2, 10).

Findings of Court:
The court determined the petitioner husband must pay an additional Rs. 10,000/- per month on top of existing permanent alimony to ensure the wife's financial security, rectifying the lower court's oversight regarding maintenance calculation and enforcement. (Paras 26)

Issues: The primary legal questions were whether permanent alimony prohibits subsequent maintenance enhancements under Section 127 of the CrPC and how the court should consider income changes in calculating maintenance. (Paras 21, 26)

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that maintenance directives under separate statutes, including ongoing financial changes, must be regarded to ensure equitable support, affirming no absolute barrier exists for subsequent claims after permanent alimony. (Paras 21, 24)

Result: Both revision applications are disposed of with modifications to the maintenance order.

Table of Content
1. common judgment for identical cases. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. maintenance orders and their progression. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8)
3. arguments regarding eligibility for maintenance enhancement. (Para 10 , 11 , 12)
4. court's analysis on overlapping jurisdictions for maintenance. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17)
5. inherent powers of the court and conditions for maintenance. (Para 18 , 19 , 21)
6. judicial scrutiny of enhancement orders. (Para 22 , 23 , 24)
7. clarification of the order concerning maintenance. (Para 25 , 26)
8. conclusion and final order. (Para 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31)

JUDGMENT :

Bibhas Ranjan De, J.

1. Both the revision applications involving identical facts and circumstances and arising out of the self same cause of action shall be disposed of via this common judgment.

2. Revision application being no. CRR 4188 of 2024 has been preferred assailing the Order dated 20.08.2024 passed by Ld. Judicial Magistrate, 1st Court Barasat, North 24 Paraganas, in Miscellaneous Case no. 13 of 2012 under Section 127 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as CrPC) thereby directing the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 30,000/- per month towards the maintenance of the petitioner from the date of the filing of application.

3. Whereas the other revision application being no. CRR 697 of 2024 has been instituted assailing the Order dated 03.01.2024 passed by Ld. Judicial Magistrate, 1st Court Barasat, North 24 Paraganas in connection with Miscellaneous Case no. 13 of 2012 wherein Ld. Magistrate rejected the petition filed by the opposite party therein with a prayer for cancellation of order of maintenance on the ground of award of permanent alimony already granted by the competent Civil Court in a Matrimonial suit.

Background:-

4. Ld. Judicial Magistrate, 1st Court, Barasat, North 24 Parganas disposed of an application thereby directing the opposite party/ petitioner herein to pay Rs. 1500/- per month to the petitioner from the date of filing of the application under Section 125 CrPC along with Rs. 2000/- per month as arrear maintenance till realization.

5. On 16th May, 2012 wife/opposite party herein filed one application under Section 127 of the CrPC for enhancement of maintenance amount, which was registered as Misc. Case no. 13 of 2012. After hearing that the maintenance amount was enhanced from 1,500/- to 14,000/-, being aggrieved, the opposite party/ petitioner herein preferred revision application being CRR No. 1726 of 2018 before this Court and at the same time wife/ opposite party also preferred one revision application being CRR 1129 of 2018. Both the revision applications were disposed of on 13.12.2022 by the Hon’ble Co-ordinate Bench and remanded back the matter with a direction upon the Ld. Magistrate to hear the application afresh as per guidelines laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Rajnesh vs. Neha and Another , (2012) 2 Supreme Court Cases 324

6. Prior to the enhancement of maintenance to the tune of Rs. 14,000/- per month by the Ld. Magistrate on 10.04.2018 in Misc. Case 13 of 2012 under Section 127 of the CrPC, alimony pendente lite was passed directing the husband to pay Rs. 17,000/- per month with effect from 18.04.2017, in connection with MAT Suit no. 34 of 2015.

7. Said order of alimony pendente lite was assailed by the parties by filing their respective applications being no. C.O. 2183 of 2017 and C.O. 2483 of 2017 respectively. Both the Civil Orders were disposed of by a common judgment and order dated 31.10.2017, affirming the amount of alimony pendente lite.

8. The Mat Suit No. 34 of 2015 was decreed on 29.09.2020 wherein Ld. Additional District Judge, Fast Track, 3rd Court, Barasat, directed the petitioner/ husband to pay Rs. 20,000/- per month. Thereafter, on 20.08.2024, Ld. Magistrate, 1st Court, Barasat, North 24 Paragnas, disposed of an application under Section 127 of the CrPC filed by the opposite party/ wife on 19.05.2012 against her husband with a prayer for enhancement of ma

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 Back to top