AD-09 Ct No.16

14.05.2025 TN FA 30 of 2010 IA No: CAN 2 of 2025 Sri Subir Kumar Ghosh Vs.

Smt. Gayatri Ghosh Mr. Soumyajit Ghosal, Ms. Manideepa (Paul) Roy ….for the appellant/husband Mr. U.K. Bhattacharyya, Mr. Ardhendu Nag, Mr. Dibakar Das ….for the respondent/wife

1. At the outset, learned counsel for the respondent/wife submits that the exhibits which were taken back by the respondent/wife were deposited with the appropriate authorities and, as such, the certified copies thereof as well as newly issued digital ration cards, which have been issued in place of the previous ration cards, which had been marked as exhibits, have been furnished.

2. However, since the new digital ration cards were not part of the trial court records, nor exhibited in the court below, those cannot be construed to be exhibits in the suit.

3. The office is directed to furnish a further report as to whether the certified copies of all the withdrawn exhibits have been filed by the respondent.

4. Such report shall be furnished by June 13, 2025.

5. The application, bearing IA No: CAN 2 of 2025, is taken up for hearing.

6. Although the application has been couched as one for “appropriate order”, upon hearing learned counsel for the respondent/wife/petitioner, we find that such caption has been given under a mistaken notion of law.

7. The present appeal arises from the dismissal of a divorce suit filed by the appellant/husband in the year 2009. The respondent/wife, apparently, was under the erroneous impression that the alimony pendente lite granted by the trial court during pendency of the suit shall continue during pendency of the appeal as well, on the premise that appeal is a continuation of the suit.

8. Even the appellant/husband initially deposited arrears of alimony, even after the suit was disposed of. An execution case was levied on the self-same premise in respect of non-payment of the alimony pendente lite even for a period after filing of the appeal. The husband also cleared off some of the dues in such context, proceeding on the premise initially that the order of alimony pendente lite passed in the suit was subsisting during pendency of the appeal.

9. However, subsequently the appellant/husband grew wiser and filed an application for refund of the amount paid for the period after passing of the impugned decree.

10. Thus, in effect, we treat the present application to be one for alimony pendente lite.

11. Learned counsel for the respondent/wife, during hearing, submits on instruction that the application filed by the appellant/husband for refund of the excess amount paid in respect of the alimony pendente lite has already been rejected.

12. Be that as it may, we independently take up the present application by treating the same to be an application for alimony pendent lite.

13. The respondent/wife claims that she is unemployed.

In the application, she has claimed alimony at the rate of Rs.15,000/- per month for herself and her major son in lieu of education expenses for the said son. It is denied by the respondent/wife that she is earning anything, either as a beautician, as alleged by the husband, or otherwise. Also, it is denied that the son of the parties is employed anywhere or is earning salary.

14. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant/husband submits that the appellant/husband is suffering from severe cardiac ailments and is due to undergo a cardiac operation on May 24, 2025. Previously, in the year 2019 as well, the appellant/husband suffered a heart attack, for which a stent had to be implanted in his body.

15. It is contended that in the year 2012, a ruckus was created by the respondent/wife in the Bar Association room where the appellant/husband used to sit during his tenure of practice as an Advocate, in the City Civil Court at Calcutta, due to which severe trauma and ignominy was caused to the husband. Consequentially, in order to avoid ridicule from his peers, the appellant/husband allegedly left practice thereafter and is now dependent on