Sanjoy Datta vs Jolly Datta

Shampa Sarkar, J

The petitioner, who is the husband in Matrimonial Suit No.26 of 2017 pending before the learned Additional District Judge, 5th Court at Barasat, has

filed this revisional application. Being aggrieved by an order dated August 3, 2018 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, 5th Court at

Barasat by which maintenance pendente lite of Rs.15,000/- per moth was awarded by the learned Court below along with Rs.12,000/- as litigation

costs.

It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that although the petitioner was a qualified Civil Engineer and was working in a very reputed organisations,

but at the relevant point of time when the Misc. Case No.84 of 2017 was disposed of, the petitioner was jobless and this aspect was not considered by

the learned Court below. It is further submitted that the wife is a professional singer and has her own income.

The learned Advocate for the wife/opposite party submits that the documents submitted by the petitioner including the Income-Tax Return of 2011-12

indicate that he had an annual income of Rs.9.50 lakh (approximately). It is denied that the opposite party/wife is a professional singer and she is only

an amateur singer.

However, these are the disputed questions of facts which cannot be decided without trial on evidence. Admittedly, the learned Court below passed the

order impugned relying on the Income-Tax Return ofthe husband in the year 2011-12 but did take into consideration the present income or the defence

of the husband that the husband did not have any independent income at the moment. This Court cannot rule out the possibility that an able-bodied

person qualified person who was competent to work well, should maintain his estranged wife. However, quantum should be decided in this case on

evidence. Both the parties are at liberty to adduce their evidence with regard to the present income of the husband as also whether the wife was

gainfully employed as a singer and upon consideration of these documents and oral evidence adduced by both the parties, the learned Court below

should decide the matter afresh.

The impugned order dated August 3, 2018 is set aside.

The husband/petitioner is present in Court and assures the Court that the amounts awarded in the proceedings under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C., that

is, Rs.6,000/- per month from the date of the order of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bidhannagar, will be liquidated within two

weeks from date. The litigation costs of Rs.12,000/- should also be paid within two weeks from date. Copies of receipt showing payment of such

amount shall be produced in Court. Misc. Case No.84 of 2017 will be decided afresh and in accordance with law within a period of two months from

the date of communication of this order.

This revisional application is, thus, disposed of.

There will be, however, no order as to costs.

The learned Advocate-on-record for the petitioners is directed to serve a copy of this application along with a server copy of this order to the opposite

parties within a week.

Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties on priority basis.