Sri Sourav Santra vs State of West Bengal & Anr.

Ajay Kumar Gupta, J.:

Mr. Sk. Sahjahan Ali, learned Advocate represents the petitioner.

None appears on behalf of the opposite parties.

In the instant criminal revisional application, the petitioner has challenged the judgment and order dated 19.7.2024 passed by the Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, 2^nd Court at Haldia, District – Purba Medinipur in Misc. Case No. 12 of 2019.

By the said impugned order, the learned Magistrate allowed an application filed under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) praying for maintenance without any order as to costs. The petitioner was directed to pay Rs.10,000/- per month for his wife and Rs.5,000/- per month for his minor son, amounting to a total amount of Rs.15,000/- per month payable within the 10^th day of each consecutive month. The petitioner was also directed to pay the arrears of maintenance in ten instalments, starting from the current month.

The brief facts of the case are that the opposite party no.2/wife of the present petitioner got married to the petitioner on 03.07.2017 as per the Special Marriage Act, 1954. At the time of marriage, several nuptial gifts, including gold ornaments and a cash amount, were paid to the petitioner. One son, Rishav Santra, was born on 27.02.2018 from the said wedlock.

The opposite party no.2 alleged, inter alia, that her husband had an illicit relationship with another lady and, due to the said illicit relationship; she was misbehaved with and tortured as per instigation of the lady.

It is further alleged that the petitioner demanded Rs.1 lakh from his mother-in-law. On 12.12.2018, she was beaten up by her husband and finally driven out from the matrimonial house along with the minor child without allowing her to take her belongings. She is now staying with her parents in her parental house. She further alleged that she tried to negotiate the problem, but she could not succeed. The Petitioner neglected her and did not maintain her and their son. She has no income of her own to maintain herself and her minor child; as such, she had compelled to file an application for maintenance under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. claiming maintenance to the tune of Rs.10,000/- for herself and Rs.7,000/- for her minor son from the petitioner.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the allegation levelled against the petitioner is out and out false. She herself left the matrimonial home without any valid reason. The Trial Court did not consider the case of the petitioner properly, and whimsically and mechanically allowed the prayer of the opposite party no.2, although he denied that he ever tortured his wife or neglected their son. Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside and/or the maintenance amount be modified, as the petitioner has no such income to maintain her and son; rather, she has her own income to maintain herself. She is a well-educated woman possessing an M.A. degree and earns at least Rs. 10,000/- per month, imparting tuition to students.

Having heard the submissions of the learned Advocate for the petitioner and having gone through the materials available on the record, this Court finds that the petitioner herein contested the said maintenance case by filing a written objection and further denied all allegations.

The opposite party no.2 herein had examined three witnesses before the Trial Court to prove her case. Whereas the petitioner herein deposed as OPW-1. He stated that the opposite party no.2 herein is an educated lady and she earns income by imparting private tuition and earns Rs.10,000/- per month, which is sufficient to maintain herself and their son. However, the Petitioner has neither adduced any evidence, nor has he produced any document to substantiate his claim that she earns Rs. 10,000/-imparting private tuition.

The opposite party herein, on the other hand, had produced before the Trial Court the Assistant Manager (Finance and Account) of WBSETCL, Haldia Area Office as PW 3, to substantiate the monthly income of the petitioner herein. During examination, she brought the salary slip of the present petitioner to show his actual income, which is as follows:

It is an undisputed fact that the petitioner and the opposite party no.2 are legally married and have a son. It is also an admitted fact that she has been residing separately since 12^th December, 2018. The Trial Court, upon hearing the parties and assessing the evidence adduced by the parties, had disposed of the proceedings and passed orders as aforesaid.

From perusal of the record, this Court finds that the petitioner herein was unable to satisfy the Trial Court that the opposite party no.2 herein has her own income to maintain herself by imparting tuition to students, although she is an educated lady. On the contrary, his actual income has been substantiated by adducing evidence on behalf of the employer. His net salary was Rs.54882/- in September, 2022. Being the husband, he has a legal and moral obligation to maintain his wife and minor son, when she has no income of her own to maintain herself and her son.

Section 125(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 provides that if any person having sufficient means neglects or refuses to maintain his wife, who is unable to maintain herself, or his legitimate or illegitimate minor child, whether married or not, who is unable to maintain itself, a Magistrate may, upon proof of such neglect or refusal, order such person to make a monthly allowance for the maintenance of his wife or such child.

It is also settled law that the maintenance amount awarded must be reasonable and realistic, considering the financial capacity, actual income, standard of living and reasonable expenses for his own maintenance and other liabilities. The quantum must be adjudged so that the wife can maintain herself and her son with reasonable comfort.

Consequently, this Court does not find any infirmity, illegality or error in jurisdiction in allowing such maintenance to the opposite party no.2 herein to the tune of Rs.10,000/- per month and Rs.5,000/- per month for her minor son considering the net income of the petitioner. The amount of maintenance as aforesaid, awarded by this Court, is just and reasonable.

At the time of admission, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court also directed the petitioner to continue to pay the similar amount to the opposite party no.2 herein and her minor son with a further direction to pay arrears of maintenance in ten instalments without staying the order impugned. Learned counsel for the petitioner admits/concedes that the petitioner has already paid the arrears to the opposite party no.2 and has been paying the maintenance continuously.

In view of the above facts and circumstances, this Court finds the application has no merit as such, order passed by the trial Court calls for no interference.

Accordingly, CRR No. 4854 of 2024 is dismissed.

Consequently, connected application, if any, also stands disposed of.

Interim order, if any, stands vacated.

Let a copy of this judgment be communicated to the trial Court for information.

Parties shall act on the server copy of this order duly downloaded from the official website of this Court.

Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be furnished to the parties on usual undertaking.