Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 672 (GAU)

Mithu Das v. Surajit Das

2015-06-02

HRISHIKESH ROY

body2015
JUDGMENT : Heard Ms. B. Sharma, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner (wife). Also heard Mr. S. Saikia, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent (husband). 2. The respondent filed a divorce suit i.e. Title Suit (D) No.16/2009 and after receiving summons from the Court, the wife appeared and applied for maintenance pendent lite under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). In her application, the wife pleaded that the husband runs a shop under the name and style of “Bornali Store” at Sepon and has other business income from which he earns Rs.40,000/- every month. Accordingly she claimed maintenance of Rs.20,000/- P.M. for herself and her minor son by projecting that she is unemployed and is residing at her paternal home at Dibrugarh. In his written objection, the husband however contended that he resides in a joint family and the monthly income from the shop is not more than Rs.2,200/- P.M.. Accordingly he objected to the plea of maintenance. 3. The learned Addl. District Judge, Dibrugarh noted from the evidence that the husband earns Rs.6,000/- P.M. from his shop and their standard of living is that of a middle class family. As the wife was then receiving Rs.800/- as interim maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C., the amount was increased by Rs.400/-, i.e. total Rs.1200/- P.M. on the wife’s application, filed under Section 24 of the Act. The availability of free legal aid to the wife in the divorce case under the District Legal Services Authority was taken into account while fixing the maintenance @Rs.1200/- P.M. for the wife and the child. 4. This Court while admitting this Revision petition filed by the aggrieved wife on 2.5.2011, ordered the husband to pay maintenance @Rs.3000/- P.M. during the pendency of the case. It now appears that for last 5 years this amount is being paid regularly to the petitioner and the minor child by the respondent. However the divorce proceeding is stalled so far since the L.C.R. was requisitioned by the Court, while admitting this Revision petition. 5. The son born to the parties is now aged about 14/15 years and naturally additional expenses are needed towards education of the child. However the divorce proceeding is stalled so far since the L.C.R. was requisitioned by the Court, while admitting this Revision petition. 5. The son born to the parties is now aged about 14/15 years and naturally additional expenses are needed towards education of the child. At the same time, while the precise earning figure of the husband is not available, it is seen that he could comfortably pay Rs.3,000/- P.M. to the wife and the child in terms of this Court’s order dated 2.5.2011. Therefore estimating the paying capacity of the respondent from this perspective and considering increased cost of living for the petitioner and her minor son, I feel that Rs.4,000/- P.M. should now be paid by the husband, under Section 24 of the Act. It is ordered accordingly. 6. As the L.C.R. was requisitioned, the Registry should return the same to the learned Court at Dibrugarh, so that the Title Suit (D) No.16/2009 can now be adjudicated expeditiously on merit. This case is accordingly disposed of.