Sajal Das vs Champa Das

Heard Mr. D Bhattacharjee, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr. AK Bhowmik, learned senior counsel assisted by Ms A Banik, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

The challenge in this revision petition is directed against the judgment and order dated 29.03.2017 passed in Cr. Misc./FC/UDP/35/2016 by the learned Judge, Family Court, Udaipur, Gomati District inasmuch as by the said order, in exercise of power under Section 127 of the CrPC the maintenance allowance has been enhanced for the respondent from Rs.4,000/- to Rs.5,000/- and for the child from Rs.3,500/- to Rs.4,000/-. Hence, the petitioner has to pay a total sum of Rs.9,000/- per month to the respondent and their child.

The main ground of objection to question the said judgment is that the respondent as a contractual teacher has been earning a sum of Rs.10,000/- per month on 'no work no pay' basis. According to Mr. Bhattacharjee, that maintenance allowance should have been altered negatively in view of such admission that the respondent has been getting a salary of Rs.10,000/- per month but the Judge, Family Court has altered the maintenance allowance by enhancing it in the changed circumstances.

The Judge, Family court for such enhancement has observed that- "there has been great inflation in prices of goods. As the O.P. is a Govt. employee he has got his yearly increment and D.A. upon the increment and as such his salary has also increased by these 2 years. Though the petitioner has a source of income of her own but the same being on no work no pay basis may not be sufficient for her to bear the expense for herself as well as her minor daughter who is undergoing studies. At present if I take into account the monthly salary of the petitioner as well as the maintenance received by them then the total money which the petitioner gets to bear her expense for the month along with petitioner No.2 is Rs.17,500/- and the income of the petitioner No.1 being uncertain it may not be possible for her to meet her monthly expense including those of petitioner No.2. Moreover, it is to be borne in mind that the petitioner is taking the pain of bringing up the minor child solely. Therefore, I find circumstances to enhance the monthly maintenance in favour of the petitioners."

This Court does not find any infirmity in the said basis and therefore, the petition stands dismissed on affirming the judgment and order dated 29.03.2017 passed by the Judge, Family Court, Udaipur, Gomati District, Tripura.