CAUSE TITLE:
Nripendra Chandra Mahanta Vs. Smt. Pramila Mahanta
DATE OF ORDER:
08th February 2023
JUDGE(S):
Honourable Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.
PARTIES:
Petitioner: Nripendra Chandra Mahanta
Respondent: Smt. Pramila Mahanta.
SUBJECT:
The Hon’ble Calcutta High Court (hereinafter referred to as ‘High Court’ or ‘the Court’), has ordered the District Judge in Cooch Behar to reconsider the alimony determination made in a wife's plea under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act in accordance with the standard established by the Supreme Court in Rajnesh v. Neha.
IMPORTANT PROVISIONS:
Hindu Marriage Act
- Section 24 – allows both the woman and the husband to request maintenance clause, provided the husband can demonstrate that he does not have a separate source of income. The spouse must, however, persuade the court that he is unable to work and support himself because of a physical or mental condition.
BRIEF FACTS:
- An application for seeking alimony was filed in the lower court by the respondent which was initially granted.
- Aggrieved by the decision the appellant went to the higher court where the District Judge of Cooch Behar's order awarding the alimony to the petitioner's wife at the rate of Rs. 7000 per month and legal expenses of Rs. 5,000 was overturned by the single-judge bench of Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya on the facts that the lower court without taking into account the fact that the petitioner's husband had not filed an affidavit regarding disclosure of Assets and Liabilities, gave the final verdict.
QUESTIONS ROSE:
Whether the submissions of the affidavits are mandatory is case of maintained proceedings?
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE PETITIONER
- It has been argued by the council that order given by the lower court awarding the alimony is excessive for a retired school teacher.
- The legality which was established in the case of Rajnesh v. Neha [(2021) 2 SCC 324] has not been applied by the lower court while giving the final verdict.
- Also, the required affidavits were not filed by the respondent before the court.
- The ownership of the rice mill which was pointed out by the respondent has been closed
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE RESPONDENT
- It has been stated by the council that her husband himself told that he owns a rice mill apart from being the retired school teacher.
- It should also be noted that the prayed alimony which is Rs. 7000/- per month is a minimal amount to even survive.
ANALYSIS BY THE COURT:
- The court ordered the District Judge in Cooch Behar to reconsider the alimony claim, with the condition that both parties provide documents in accordance with the Supreme Court's ruling in Rajnesh v. Neha within six months.
- The court did rule, however, that in addition to the wife's medical expenditures, the petitioner-husband must continue making ad hoc payments to the opposition party with the sum of Rs. 4,000 per month for maintenance.
CONCLUSION
In the above case it has been seen that the judgment of Rajnesh v. Neha states that Affidavits of Disclosure of Assets and Liabilities are required to be submitted by both sides in all maintenance actions, including those that are currently continuing before the relevant Family Court, District Court, or Magistrates Court.
Since the marriage between the petitioner and the opposition candidate is still going strong, it simply cannot be disputed that the petitioner is permitted to a minimum of certain ad hoc alimony out from her husband, even though learned advocate for the petitioner is validated in claiming that the rule established in Rajnesh vs. Neha has not been followed at all in the current case.
Click here to download the original copy of the judgement
