In Re : Paramita Pal Nee Bhajan

Calcutta High Court

26 September 2012

CRR No. 2968 of 2012

The Order of the Court was as follows :

1. This revision was directed against the order dated 18.6.2012 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 2nd Court, Barrackpore, North 24 Paraganas in connection with an application for interim maintenance filed in M. Case No. 569 of 2012 pending u/s. 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

2. In the background of this revision the fact in a nutshell is that the Opposite Party is the husband of the petitioner as they were married on 26.11.2006 according to the Special Marriage Act, 1954. It was a negotiated marriage. The Opposite Party was not known from before but they were very keen over the solemnization of marriage. The petitioner’s father spent Rs. 3.50 lacs and gave jewelleries near about 10 vorries worth Rs. 1.50 lacs and valuables worth Rs. 1.50 lacs by borrowing and begging from near and dear ones. Things changed after marriage and the petitioner’s husband took her to his native place Pandua and members of in-laws showed disgust at her. The petitioner’s husband took away all jewelleries and valuables. The parties came back to Kolkata on ‘astomongola’ and immediately thereafter, the petitioner’s husband announced that he had surrendered his rented flat and had no signs of going back to Pandua and persuaded the petitioner’s father to stay in his house.

3. The petitioner’s father allowed it. The petitioner was subjected to severe mental agony by her husband. The parties shifted to a new flat in 5/6, Jatin Das Nagar, Belghoria, Kolkata-56 in April, 2007. The petitioner has done M.A. in history. She was made to do all household work and even forced to wash her husband’s undergarments. The Opposite Party provided no expenses to her. He also demanded dowry and in case of failure to pay threatened her. He used to abuse her causing mental trauma. Her husband tortured her to the extent of pulling her hair, by pressing her private parts severely and even hitting her on the head and stomach. He also attempted to strangulate her. Despite unwillingness of the petitioner, he became pregnant out of him. When she was carrying for one month, her husband beat her up mercilessly. Her husband gave her pills so that petitioner’s baby is aborted. On 3rd April, 2009, he beat her seriously around 10 P.M. and left her and did not come back or gave his whereabouts. Her child was born on 8.11.2009 but the Opposite Party did not come to meet them.

The Opposite Party enjoys handsome monthly salary from his service in Udaypur H. D. N. Adarsh Vidyalaya in Udaypur, Nimta, Kolkata-700049 as a senior teacher of Economics. He also earns Rs. 40000/- p.m. out of private tuition. Nothing was paid to her. So, the petitioner filed application u/s. 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in M. Case No. 569 of 2012 before the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barrackpore, North 24 Paraganas which was transferred to the 2nd court of learned J.M. there. On 18.6.12, the learned Magistrate was pleased to pass an order rejecting the maintenance of wife and granting an interim maintenance of Rs.2000/- in favour of minor child.

4. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the order dated 18.6.12, the petitioner moved the present revision. Now, the point for consideration is if the impugned order has caused any miscarriage of justice and calls for any interference or not.

5. At the time of hearing, none came on behalf of the petitioner whereas the learned counsel for the Opposite Party was present. It was contended by him that the instant revisional case be dismissed as the petitioner is earning substantially.

6. The impugned order was passed on 8.6.2012, on hearing of both the sides in respect of interim maintenance. There were allegations vs. objections and so on. It was contended by the learned counsel for the husband that the present petitioner filed the instant case after the husband filed a case for restitution of conjugal rights against her. It was also contended that the petitioner was earning Rs. 20000/- p.m. from the place of her employment. In the order of the learned court below it was found that the petitioner herself filed a Xerox copy of the pay slip wherein it was shown that her income was Rs. 8765/- whereas the Opposite Party submitted Xerox copy of his salary slip showing that his “take home salary” was Rs.20936/-.

7. Therefore, the question of payment of ad interim maintenance to the petitioner was not found to be acceptable to the learned court below. I also do support his view in this respect.

8. Next comes the question of payment of interim maintenance to the child born out of wedlock between the parties. Rs. 1000/- was granted as interim measure p.m. after considering the school fees, medical expenditure etc. of her daughter. The age of the minor daughter and in which class she is reading have not been reflected in the copy of the order.

However, the Opposite Party was directed to pay Rs.2000/- p.m. as interim maintenance to his daughter. The order appears to be a speaking one and I do not find any irregularity in it.

9. Accordingly, I do not find any merit in the revision and the same stands dismissed.

10. I pass no order as to costs.

Revision dismissed