Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 331 (CAL)

Nusrat Khatun v. Abu Barkat

2020-03-02

JAY SENGUPTA

body2020
JUDGMENT Jay Sengupta, J. - This is an application challenging an order dated 28.05.2018 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 3rd Court, Jangipur, Murshidabad, in Maintenance Case being M.R. Case No.338 of 2017, (T.R. No.1594/2017), under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. Affidavit-Of-Service furnished by the petitioner be kept on record. 3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner/wife submits as follows. The petitioner/wife got married with the opposite party/husband on 09.11.2011. Some time after the marriage, the opposite party and his family members pressurized her to bring Rs.3,00,000/- as dowry from her father''s house. They were also dissatisfied with the dowry articles given by the parents of the petitioner/wife. The opposite party/husband and other in-laws started inflicting cruelty on the petitioner/wife. There was an attempt to kill the foetus in the petitioner''s womb by kicking on her abdomen. The petitioner/wife fell ill and was compelled to take shelter in her father''s house. The petitioner/wife was a teacher in a high school and was earning about Rs.35,000/- per month. The amount granted by the learned Trial Court as interim maintenance allowance is grossly inadequate for the maintenance of the petitioner/wife. 4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the husband /opposite party submits as follows. Although, marriage between the couple is admitted, the opposite party denies subjecting the petitioner/wife cruelty. Although, the petitioner/wife earns about Rs.30,000/- per month as a school teacher, he has several other obligations to cater to. The petitioner/wife did not have sufficient ground to claim maintenance allowance from the date of application. 5. I have heard the submissions of the learned counsels appearing for the parties and have perused the revisional petition. 6. In the present case, the marriage between the warring couple is admitted. The facts that the opposite party/hushand is a school teacher and that he is earning at least Rs.30,000/- per month is also admitted. 7. There are serious allegations of torture made by the petitioner/wife against the opposite party/husband and in-laws. 8. As such, the learned Magistrate rightly came to a finding that the petitioner/wife was entitled to get interim maintenance and that too from the date of application. 9. Considering the financial status of the husband/opposite party, a grant of a meagre sum of Rs.2,300/- as monthly interim maintenance allowance for the child seems to be grossly insufficient. 10. 8. As such, the learned Magistrate rightly came to a finding that the petitioner/wife was entitled to get interim maintenance and that too from the date of application. 9. Considering the financial status of the husband/opposite party, a grant of a meagre sum of Rs.2,300/- as monthly interim maintenance allowance for the child seems to be grossly insufficient. 10. On the contrary, the opposite party/husband failed to prove that the petitioner/wife was having any independent source of income either, as a "bidi worker" or otherwise. 11. The wife is to be maintained by her husband commensurate with the standard of living that she would have enjoyed she had been able to live at the husband''s household. However, the sum to be granted as interim maintenance allowance should neither be luxurious nor penurious. 12. After taking all these into consideration, I think it will be appropriate if the amount of monthly interim maintenance allowance is enhanced from Rs.2300/- per month to sum of Rs.6000/- per month to be paid from the date of order of the learned Trial Court i.e. 28.05.2018. Prior to that and till the filing of the application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the wife, the wife shall be entitled to receive interim maintenance allowance at the rate of Rs.2300/- per month. 13. Learned Trial Court is requested to conclude the proceeding under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as expeditiously as possible without granting any unnecessary adjournment to any of the parties. 14. With these observations, this revisional application being C.R.R. 3413 of 2019 is disposed of. 15. Urgent certified photostat copy of this judgement, if applied for, be given to the parties as expeditiously as possible on compliance of all necessary formalities.