IMPORTANT POINT
Amount of permanent alimony to the wife must be befitting status of the parties and capacity of the spouse to pay maintenance.

JUDGMENT

R. BANUMATHI, J.

Leave granted.

2. Challenge in this appeal is to the order dated 15.09.2016 passed by the High Court at Calcutta in RVW No.85 of 2016 in C.O. No.4228 of 2012, reviewing an order dated 02.02.2015 passed earlier in an application filed under Section 25(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, thereby enhancing the amount of maintenance from Rs.16,000/-per month to Rs.23,000/-per month.

3. Parties are entangled in several rounds of litigation. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows: The marriage of the appellant and the respondent was solemnized on 10.08.1995 as per Hindu rites and customs at the appellant’s residence at Kalna. A male child was born on 04.10.1996 at Chandannagore who is now a major pursuing his college education. After the birth of child, it is alleged that the respondent continued in her parent’s house. The appellant-husband requested the respondent to return to the matrimonial home at Kalna alongwith the child. It is alleged that instead of acceding to the request of the appellant-husband and returning back to the matrimonial home, the respondent-wife insisted that the appellant-husband shifts to her father’s place at Chandannagore.

4. Appellant filed an application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for restitution of conjugal rights against the respondent-wife in Matrimonial Suit No.370 of 1997 before the District Judge, Burdwan on 23.12.1997. On receipt of summons in the above matrimonial suit on 9.02.1998, the respondent-wife lodged an FIR bearing P.S. Case No.25 dated 13.02.1998 under Sections 498A and 406 IPC against the appellant and his parents at P.S. Chandannagore. The appellant and his parents were granted anticipatory bail by the Sessions Judge, Burdwan on 20.05.1998 in the FIR filed by the respondent-wife. The respondent-wife also filed a maintenance case being Misc. Case No.24/98 under Section 125 Cr.P.C. against the appellant-husband claiming maintenance for herself and the minor son.

5. On 10.08.2000, the Additional District Judge, Burdwan passed decree of restitution of conjugal rights in favour of the appellant-husband. However, the respondent did not reconcile and preferred an appeal against the said decree of restitution of conjugal rights before the High Court being F.A. No.198 of 2001. In the High Court, by an order dated 24.05.2001 an interim arrangement was made directing the appellant herein to go to the parental home of the respondent-wife at Chandannagore and take back the wife and the child to his residence at Kalna and make necessary arrangement for living with his wife and child separately from the parents of the husband in the first floor of the matrimonial home. Subsequently, the interim arrangement was recalled. The interim arrangement did not work and the appeal filed by the respondent-wife was allowed on 13.08.2003.

6. In the year 2003, respondent-wife filed a Matrimonial Suit No.533 of 2003 before the District Judge Hooghly against the appellant-husband under Section 10 of the Act for judicial separation. According to the appellant, though he filed written objections denying allegations made against him, he could not attend the hearing and it is alleged that he was manhandled in the court premises by some men of the respondent-wife. Ex parte decree for judicial separation was ordered on 19.05.2006, as a consequence of which decree for permanent alimony was also ordered under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act to the respondent-wife amounting to Rs.2,500/-per month and Rs. 2,000/-per month to the minor son.

7. In the meanwhile, the appellant-husband and his parents were acquitted of all the charges by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, 2nd Fast Track Court, Serempore on 20.07.2006 in the case filed alleging dowry harassment. Being aggrieved by the order hereinabove, the respondent-wife filed a revision petition being CRR No. 3087 of 2006 before the High Court at Calcutta which came to be dismissed on 21.03.2011.

8. The appell