In Re : Siddhartha De
Calcutta High Court
4 October 2012
CRR No. 3632 of 2011
The Order of the Court was as follows :
1. This revision arose out of the order dated 3.9.2011 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Court, Berhampore, Murshidabad in M.R. Case No. 76/11. In the background of this case the fact in a nutshell is that the petitioner is married with Opposite Party No. 2 on 3rd March, 2006 under Special Marriage Act. After marriage, they lived together at matrimonial home at 17, Anupama Road, P.S. Belghoria, Calcutta-700 056. After two months of marriage, the Opposite Party No. 2 voluntarily went to her father’s residence for completion of B. Ed. Degree and she almost continuously stayed there for about one year depriving the petitioner from her companion. In 2007, the Opposite Party No. 2 came to reside with the petitioner and she got a job as a Contract Lecturer at Bhairab Ganguli College.
After six months she simultaneously undertook research work at the Analytical Chemistry Division, Kalyani University, Nadia. The Opposite Party No. 2 after marriage subjected the petitioner with mental cruelty. She tried to ignore the petitioner and his family members. On 16.9.2006, she voluntarily left the matrimonial home. The incident was recorded in the local P.S. On 18.9.2010, the parents of the Opposite Party No. 2 along with other family members came at the residence of the petitioner and on mutual discussion took away clothes and other articles. The Opposite Party No. 2 also came to the matrimonial home and took away her goods and belongings including keys of a joint bank locker.
2. On 22.9.2010, the Opposite Party No. 2 lodged totally false complaint with the Belghoria P.S. against the petitioner and his mother. Finding no other alternative, the petitioner filed an application u/s. 27 of the Special Marriage Act, 1954for divorce before the learned District & Sessions Judge, Barasat, North 24 Paraganas vide M. Suit No. 1887/10. As a counter- blast, the Opposite Party No. 2 filed an application u/s. 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the petitioner in M.R. Case No. 76 of 2011 at Berhampore. The petitioner filed written objection. The Opposite Party No. 2 has suppressed material fact that she is receiving from the Government of West Bengal a stipend of Rs. 8000/- p.m. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said order dated 3.9.11, the petitioner has come up with this present revision.
3. Now, the point for consideration is that if the impugned order dated 3.9.11 suffers from any material irregularity and calls for any interference or not. It was argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has sufficient means. On the other hand, the learned counsel for Opposite Party No. 2 argued that she used to earn a scholarship and that has been terminated from 31.12.2011. In this respect, learned counsel for the petitioner insisted upon filing an affidavit to the effect that after 31.12.2011 she is not getting any stipend.
4. From the impugned order it appears that the petitioner works as a Scientific Officer at Variable Energy Cyclotron Centre, Department of Atomic Energy and he used to earn about Rs. 56000/- p.m. while the petitioner contended that the wife is pursuing her research work in Kalyani University, Nadia and has been earning Rs. 8000/- p.m. as a stipend. He further contended that there is also fixed deposit of Rs. 1.70 lacs. I have duly considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order. The contention taken by both the sides regarding income of both sides are matter of fact which needs to be decided on trial in the learned court below.
5. As regards payment of interim maintenance, justification has to be done. The income of the petitioner has not been duly denied by him. The wife alleged further demand of cash and ill- treatment by the petitioner. The learned Magistrate considered the status of both the sides and opined that the status of the wife follows the status of the husband. There is no whisper or allegation from the side of the petitioner that the wife used to live lavishly. Rather it is expected that the wife should lead a life which will be commensurate to that of the husband. Now, considering the statement of both the parties, I am of the view that it will be justified if the amount of interim maintenance is fixed at Rs. 3000/- p.m.
6. The petitioner is directed to pay Rs. 3000/- p.m. by the 7th of corresponding proximo to the Opposite Party No. 2. Accordingly, the instant revision succeeds in part. Thus, the revision is disposed of. I pass no order as to costs. Urgent Photostat certified copies, if applied for, be supplied according to rules.
Revision partly allowed
