Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 108 (GAU)

BISHNU PADA SAHA @ SHIV RANJAN SAHA v. ALO SAHA

2018-01-23

A.K.GOSWAMI

body2018
JUDGMENT/ORDER : Arup Kumar Goswami, J. Heard Mr. A. Rahman, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. I. Rafique, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 2. By this revision petition, the petitioner calls into question an order dated 14.12.2016, passed by the learned District Judge, Dhubri, in Misc. (J) Case No. 75/16, arising out of a petition filed by the respondent under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, for grant of maintenance pendente lite and expenses of the proceeding, whereby the learned court below directed the petitioner to pay Rs. 3,000.00 per month to the respondent, who is wife of the petitioner, as maintenance pendent lite along with Rs. 10,000.00 as expenses of the proceeding. 3. While entertaining the present petition on 21.04.2017, an interim order was passed subject to the condition that the petitioner deposits the aforesaid amount of Rs. 10,000.00, as ordered by the learned District Judge, Dhubri, as well as an additional amount of Rs. 10,000.00 for the expenses of the present proceeding within a period of four weeks from the date of the order and that if the aforesaid total amount of Rs. 20,000.00 is not deposited within the time allowed, the interim order shall not be a bar for enforcement or execution of the impugned order. 4. It is submitted by Mr. Rahman that the petitioner had deposited an amount of Rs. 20,000.00 and Mr. Rafique submits that the respondent had withdrawn the aforesaid amount. 5. Mr. Rafique submits that both the petitioner and the respondent are school teachers and while the salary of the petitioner is Rs. 23,000.00, the salary of the respondent is Rs. 20,000.00. It is further submitted by Mr. Rafique that the petitioner could not produce any document before the learned trial court with regard to the salary of the respondent and, based on the submission of the counsel for the respondent that she has earning capacity of about Rs. 5,000.00 per month, the aforesaid order was passed. He has submitted that having regard to the income of the respondent, the impugned order cannot be justified as the respondent would not be entitled to any maintenance in view of her income. 5,000.00 per month, the aforesaid order was passed. He has submitted that having regard to the income of the respondent, the impugned order cannot be justified as the respondent would not be entitled to any maintenance in view of her income. He, however, submits that as the employment of the respondent is on ad hoc basis, liberty may be granted to the respondent to file appropriate application again for pendent lite maintenance in case the employment of the respondent is not continued or her salary is reduced. 6. In view of the above submission of the learned counsel for the parties, the impugned order dated 14.12.2016, passed by the learned District Judge, Dhubri, in Misc. (J) Case No. 75/16 is set aside only to the extent of grant of maintenance pendente lite under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. 7. As prayed for by Mr. Rafique, liberty is, however, granted to the respondent to file appropriate application for pendente lite maintenance, in future, if the situation so demands. 8. The revision petition stands disposed of.