Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 33 (CAL)

Pradip Ghosh v. Sampa Ghosh

2020-01-09

JAY SENGUPTA

body2020
JUDGMENT Jay Sengupta, J. - This is an application challenging an order dated 07.12.2016 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barasat, North 24 Parganas, in M Case No.46 of 2016/M Case No.131 of 2016, thereby granting interim maintenance allowance at the rate of Rs.2500/- per month for the wife/opposite party no.1 and Rs.1500/- per month for her minor daughter with effect from the date of application. 2. Affidavit of service filed on behalf of the petitioner is taken on record. 3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits as follows. The opposite party no.1/wife did not have sufficient grounds to stay away from the husband. This would be evident from an undertaking given by the wife's father that in order to resolve the family dispute, he was taking away his daughter to his place for a month. The petitioner had a small grocery shop and earned very tittle to sustain such high rates of monthly maintenance allowance as awarded by the impugned order 4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party no.1/wife submits as follows. The marriage and the paternity of the child were not disputed. The main proceeding under section 125 of the Code was going on. The purported undertaking given by the wife's father was executed under duress. In any even, this did not take away or waive the right of the wife and the child to be maintained by the husband/petitioner. 5. I have heard the submissions made on behalf of the learned counsels for the petitioner and the opposite party no.1 and have perused the revision petition. 6. First, the marriage between the couple and the paternity of the minor daughter are not disputed. 7. Secondly, the purported undertaking given by the wife's father, which is subject to strict proof, does not have any bearing on the right of the wife and the child to be maintained by the husband/petitioner. Besides, even if one goes by the document of the wife's father, the arrangement was for a month. There is no material to indicate whether the petitioner made any effort to maintain the wife and the child after the said period. In this regard, one also needs to take into consideration the allegations of physical and mental torture levelled by the wife against her husband and other family members in her application under section 125 of the Code. 8. In this regard, one also needs to take into consideration the allegations of physical and mental torture levelled by the wife against her husband and other family members in her application under section 125 of the Code. 8. I am in agreement with the view taken by the learned Magistrate that the petitioner is indeed liable to pay maintenance to the wife and the child. 9. As regards the financial capacity of the petitioner, the fact that the petitioner has a grocery shop is not inconsistent with the grant of the sums as interim maintenance allowance to the wife and the minor daughter. 10. Considering the rise in prices of essential commodities and the fact that the husband is supposed to maintain his wife at the same status that she would have enjoyed had she been able to stay in the household of the husband, I do not find any illegality in the impugned order granting interim maintenance allowances to the wife and the minor child. 11. Accordingly, the revisional application is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. 12. The learned original court is requested to dispose of the main application under section 125 of the Code as expeditiously as possible. 13. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, is to be given to the parties upon usual undertakings.