Subrata Ghosh vs Sujata Ghosh

Rajasekhar Mantha, J

Supplementary affidavit filed by the petitioner in Court today be kept with the record.

The revisionist is aggrieved by judgment and order dated December 31, 2011 passed in Misc. Case No. 94 of 2007 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Kalyani, Nadia in an application under Section 125 of Cr. P.C.

The petitioner appeared in person in the court below as he has done before this Hon'ble Court. He has urged various points, which have all been considered. The principal argument of the petitioner is that the opposite party - wife has sufficient means to maintain herself and has not disclosed in her application of Section 125 of Cr. P.C. that she has left the matrimonial house with her daughter and also the fact that she has left the matrimonial house out of her own without any just and reasonable cause. Each of the aforesaid argument has been dealt with in detail by the learned Magistrate.

The petitioner has also urged in the court below and here that the opposite party - wife has some Kisan Vikas Patra Deposits in her name purchased out of funds paid by him. The evidence on record shows that otherwise, i.e. that they were invested with funds given by her father.

The petitioner also argued that he visited Jammu and Vaishnu Devi with his wife when there was no allegation of torture.

The learned Magistrate has gone at length to analyze the arguments and the evidence that have come on record. The petitioner has not been able to demonstrate by way of evidence his allegation of adultery by the opposite party - wife. The opposite party - wife and her child are living separately from the petitioner for about 12 years as of now. The learned Magistrate has found favour with the opposite party - wife in respect of her claim for maintenance and has ordered a sum of Rs. 2,000/- per month to be paid by the petitioner to the opposite party - wife and Rs. 1,000/- towards the child. The petitioner has retired from service from B.S.F. and receives Rs. 11,000/- as monthly pension.

The sum awarded towards maintenance is meagre and is unlikely even otherwise to meet the basic needs of the opposite party - wife and child.

The revisionist however submits that the allegation that he has not paid maintenance for the period from January 2019 to June 2019 is incorrect and submits that he has duly paid the same.

In the event, the order of maintenance impugned herein is put to execution, the petitioner shall be entitled to demonstrate by way of production of appropriate documents that he has regularly paid maintenance to the opposite party - wife.

This Court does not find any reason to interfere with the reasoned order passed by the learned Magistrate.

In those circumstances, the revisional application fails and hereby dismissed.

There will be no order as to costs.

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