Back
CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Prasenjit Mandal, J.
Aditya Malhotra —Petitioner
versus
Namrata Malhotra —Opp. Party
C.O. No. 758 of 2007 with
C.O. No. 645 of 2007
Decided on 5.4.2011
For the Petitioner:S.P. Roy Chowdhury, S. Basu, U.K. Mandal and B. Chowdhury, Advocates.
For the Opposite Party:Biswajit Basu, S. Banik and S. Shah, Advocates.
IMPORTANT POINT
Husband cannot avoid his liability to maintain his wife and children contending that his income has been lowered by dissolution of partnership firm.
Headnote:Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956—Section 18—Maintenance of wife—Knowledge of wife about approximate income of husband was obvious—Difficult for wife to collect material to show income of her husband—Obligation on husband to prove by convincing materials that he had not income which was claimed by wife which he failed to do—Husband concealed his real income to frustrate claim of wife—Order at trial Court directing husband to pay interim maintenance to wife and twin daughters justified—Maintained. (Paras 13, 16, 20 and 22)
Result: Revisional applications are disposed of accordingly.
Prasenjit Mandal, J.—These two applications are directed against the Order No.53 dated January 15, 2007 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), 8th Court, Alipore in
T.S. No.62 of 2005 thereby disposing of an application for interim maintenance.
2. Since the two applications have arisen out of the common order, they are disposed of by this common judgment. For convenience, I am taking up the C.O. No.758 of 2007 first.
C.O. No.758 of 2007
3. This application has been preferred by the defendant husband in a suit under the provisions of Section 18 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956. The wife/opposite party herein instituted the suit under the provisions of Section 18 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act claiming maintenance for herself and her twin daughters contending, inter alia, that the marriage between the parties was solemnised according to Hindu rights and rituals in Kolkata. The parties to the marriage resided at Ranchi (Jharkhand). They were blessed with twin daughters on April 17, 2003. Thereafter, the wife/opposite party herein went to her father’s house in Kolkata. She preferred to stay at her paternal’s house on the pretext that she was required medical treatment. After several persuasions, the wife opposite party herein came to her in-law’s house in July 2003. Then the opposite party went to her father’s house on November 30, 2003. Then the opposite party lodged a complaint on December 3, 2003 against all the members of the petitioner’s family before the West Bengal Commission for Women. The petitioner persuaded her to return to Ranchi in vain. Ultimately, the petitioner filed an application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 on March 19, 2004.
4. The wife/opposite party lodged a suit under the provisions of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act being T.S. No.10 of 2004 claiming maintenance for herself and for her twin daughters.
5. The petitioner filed an objection against the said petition. The parties filed documents in support of their respected contentions.
6. By an order dated March 13, 2006, the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division) allowed the prayer for interim maintenance granting Rs.20,000 per month for the O.P. herself, Rs.15,000 per month for the two twin daughters and also a litigation cost of Rs.50,000 w.e.f. the date of filing of the application.
7. Being aggrieved by that order, the husband preferred a civil revision. While disposing of the said civil revision, by an order dated September 11, 2006, one the learned Judges of this Hon’ble Court directed the learned Trial Judge to decide the matter afresh and the parties were allowed to adduce evidence/material in support of their respective contentions. Accordingly, both the parties, particularly, the husband filed certain documents in support of his contention. Thereafter, by the impugned order, the learned Trial Judge directed the husband/petitioner herein to pay interim maintenance at the rate of Rs.8,000 only per month for the wife and Rs. 12,000 per month for the twin daughters and a sum of Rs.20,000 as litigation cost. Being aggrieved by the said impugned order, the husband has preferred this revisional application.
8. The wife/opposite party herein filed the other civil revision being C.O. No. 645 of 2007 for enhancement.
9. Now, the question is whether the impugned order should be sustained.
10. Upon hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and on going through the materials on record, I find that the following facts are not disputed:
(i) That the parties were married according to Hindu rights and customs on November 17, 1997 in Kolkata.
(ii) After marriage, then parties stayed at Ranchi (Jharkhad).
(iii) At the time of marriage, the husband was a partner of M/s. Victor Corporation (India). This concern was a partnership business as per partnership date of 1994-95 whereby the father of the petitioner held 50 per cent share, the husband became 20 per cent shareholder and his brother became the r
