Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 668 (CAL)

Dipanwita Karmakar nee Rana v. Prasanta Karmakar

2016-08-24

HARISH TANDON

body2016
JUDGMENT : 1. This revisional application is directed against the order no. 89 dated April 05, 2016 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, 16th Court, Alipore in Matrimonial Suit No. 5 of 2009, by which an application for enhancement of maintenance is disposed of. 2. Admittedly the husband filed an application for dissolution of marriage way back in the year 2009, inter alia, on the ground of desertion and cruelty. The wife after entering appearance claimed maintenance pendente lite under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, which was disposed of by awarding a sum of Rs.5,000/- per month. It further appears that the wife has also approached the Judicial Magistrate with an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, whereupon a maintenance of Rs.3,000/- per month had been awarded. 3. While disposing of an application under Section 24 of the said Act, the Court found that the gross salary of the husband was Rs.27,000/- and odd per month and further held that the wife was entitled to a sum calculated on the basis of 1/5th of the total income and awarded the said sum of Rs. 5,000/- per month. Apart from the same the Trial Court also awarded Rs.10,000/- towards litigation cost. 4. The said application was disposed of on 13th January, 2012, but thereafter it does not seem to this Court that the suit really proceeded in a pace as expected to be in a matrimonial cause. 5. From the impugned order it appears that the suit has virtually reached the stage of trial and naturally at this juncture an application was taken out for enhancement of maintenance by the wife. It is alleged in the petition that during those interregnum period the income of the husband has increased considerably and in order to meet the needs required for day to day sustenance the amount of maintenance awarded earlier is insufficient and becomes unreasonable and, therefore, is required to be enhanced. 6. It is undeniable that the monthly salary of the husband has increased by passage of time. It is held by the Trial Court that the net amount, which the husband takes home is Rs.38,000/- per month, although the gross salary is Rs.42,000/- and odd. The Court after taking into account the increase in the price of the goods enhanced the amount of maintenance from Rs.5,000/- to Rs.8,000/- per month. 7. It is held by the Trial Court that the net amount, which the husband takes home is Rs.38,000/- per month, although the gross salary is Rs.42,000/- and odd. The Court after taking into account the increase in the price of the goods enhanced the amount of maintenance from Rs.5,000/- to Rs.8,000/- per month. 7. The learned advocate for the petitioner is very much vocal in his submission that the Court has not recorded any reason why the amount as claimed by the wife is not reasonable. The breakup of the expenditure has been jotted down in the application for maintenance. It is further submitted that the Court by one stroke of pen have rejected the claim towards the litigation cost without assigning any reasons. 8. On perusal of the impugned order it appears to this Court that the Trial Court was swayed by the fact that the wife had denied Binapani Karmakar to be the mother of the husband. An exception has been taken that if a lady can deny the status of a mother such lady does not deserve any latitude or leniency from the Court. 9. I do not subscribe to such opinion as expressed by the Trial Court, as those cannot be the factor for denial of maintenance to the wife, if the same is statutorily recognized under the Act. 10. In the instant case it appears that the monthly salary of the husband has increased considerably and the quantum of maintenance awarded under Section 24 of the Act was directed to be enhanced after deducting the amount of maintenance awarded in other proceedings. 11. What the wife in fact got is a sum of Rs.5,000/- per month since the year 2012. It is undeniable that the monthly salary has increased considerably and it is a finding of the Court that the husband takes home a sum of Rs.38,000/- per month. The father of the wife is no more in this world. The mother is getting family pension and had gifted the house owned by her to her son, namely the brother of the wife. The wife is admittedly residing in the said house and, therefore, cannot be allowed to remain at their mercy for all time to come. The Court should also bear in mind the rise in the price of the basic amenities and necessities, which have considerably increased between the year 2012 and 2016. The wife is admittedly residing in the said house and, therefore, cannot be allowed to remain at their mercy for all time to come. The Court should also bear in mind the rise in the price of the basic amenities and necessities, which have considerably increased between the year 2012 and 2016. It further appears that the wife is also suffering from disease and have to attend the Doctor at regular interval. 12. This Court cannot overlook the age of the litigating parties, which justifies the ailments to suffer at such age. The husband has also disclosed that he has to undergo operation and to incur huge expenditures on medicine in postoperative care. 13. It cannot, therefore, be brushed aside that some expenditure is incurred for medical treatment and the Trial Court ought to have taken into account such aspect. 14. This Court, therefore, feels that a sum of Rs.2,000/- over and above the sum awarded in the impugned order is reasonable for sustenance of the wife. 15. Accordingly, the order dated 5th April, 2016 is modified to the extent that the husband shall pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- per month after deducting the amount of maintenance awarded under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in the manner as indicated therein. 16. Since the Court has directed the enhancement of maintenance to be paid to the wife from the date of the order, meaning thereby from the month of April, 2016, the difference as cropped up by virtue of this order shall be paid in two equated monthly instalments; first of such instalments shall be made on or before 31st August, 2016 and the rest would be paid on or before 15th September, 2016. 17. Since the suit has reached the stage of evidence, it is expected that the same should reach to its logical conclusion at the earliest. 18. This Court, therefore, directs the Trial Court to make efforts to dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible without granting unnecessary adjournments to either of the parties and preferably within three months from the date of the communication of this order in accordance with law. 19. With the above observations, this revisional application is disposed of. There will be no order as to costs.