CAUSE TITLE:
Shilpi Lenka Vs Susanta Kumar Lenka & Anr.
DATE OF ORDER:
30th January 2023
JUDGE(S):
The Hon’ble Justice Shampa Dutt (Paul)
PARTIES:
Petitioner: Mr. Kamalesh Ch. Saha,
Ms. Payel Mitra,
Ms. Mishuk Saha
Respondent: Mr. Arnab Chatterjee,
Mr. Biplab Chatterjee,
Mr. Vijay Verma.
SUBJECT:
The Hon’ble Calcutta High Court (hereinafter referred to as ‘High Court’ or ‘the Court’), has revised its decision and the order of interim maintenance under revision dated 12.02.2019 issued by the Learned Judicial Magistrate, 2nd Court, Barrackpore, North 24 Parganas in M. - 479 of 2017 pursuant to Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is altered to the extent specified in the direction taking into account the materials on file.
IMPORTANT PROVISIONS:
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
- Section 125 – states the direction given by the court in awarding the order of maintenance to the wife, children and parents.
BRIEF FACTS:
- The petitioner was beaten and mentally tortured after she got married and after come time the husband left for air force and they were living separately for quit long period of time.
- On 15th May 2017 husband deserted the wife and daughter and stated living alone. Husband receive pension plus the money earned from working in bank is about Rs. 40,000/-
- Petition was file for the maintenance of Rs. 25,000/- in total for the petitioner and the daughter
- It was contented by the husband that she left the house by her own and those entire allegations were false. Also his pension was stalled due to this complaint.
- The affidavits were filed before the Magistrate including the husbands salary slip, school fee of the minor and others; on bases of such documents the court ruled that wife and the child will be entitled for the maintenance. It was further stated by the court that in order to eliminate homelessness and the state of poverty the provision comes into picture.
- The awarded maintenance was Rs. 3000/- to the daughter and Rs. 4000/- to the wife.
- The revision petition was filed against the order dated 12th February 2019 under section 125 of Criminal Procedure code 1973
QUESTIONS:
Whether the amount of support awarded depend on the fact that petitioner left her marital residence without fair and adequate justification?
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE REVISIONIST
- It was argued that there is no source of income by the petitioner. The order given by the court was not in accordance with the legal provision and affidavits presented.
- It is prayed that the order must be modified with regards to the maintenance amount so that the petitioner and the child could fulfil their basic needs and have standards of living
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE RESPONDENT
- It has been stated that the wife along with the child left the house on her own will. Also, the pension amount which was mentioned by the petitioner was stalled by the authorities due to such complaint to the Air Force Authority.
- The respondent’s income is initially very low from which he is maintaining his parents and other family members somehow. Therefore, it will be difficult for him to maintain the petitioner and the child who left him with their own choice.
- The respondent is ready to welcome the petitioner and his child and live peacefully therefore it is being prayed that this revision be dismissed.
ANALYSIS BY THE COURT:
- It was ordered by the court that pension was blocked by the Air Force authorities due to the complaint filed by the petitioner. This reduced the actual income earned by the respondent.
- Due to such reduction the prayed maintenance amount will accordingly be reduced
- Here, petitioner needs to take care of the lodged complaint against the respondent for any enhancement of the maintenance amount.
- The court awarding the maintenance will follow the guidelines mentioned in the case of ‘Ranjesh V. Neha’. Under this case the Supreme Court gave criteria for the payment of maintenance, deciding the amount of maintenance and the provisions under which such maintenance be awarded. It further included the measures with regards to the age and the employment of the said parties, situation where the wife is having come source of income and about maintenance of the minor child.
- The court modified the judgment and ordered that the child will be getting Rs. 5000/- per month as Rs. 3000/- will not be enough for a school going child. The maintenance amount for the wife will remain unchanged. Accordingly the revision is disposed and any other interim order stands vacated.
CONCLUSION
A truly challenging position for the husband arises when a wife cuts off a significant source of income and then demands an increase in maintenance. This is obviously a violation of the law and goes against the interests of justice. In the eyes of the law, both parties are equivalent, and the court must make sure that no party is treated unfairly.
While deciding the final judgement the court shall take into account that whether wife has justifiable reasons to leave the house or no and the criteria for awarding the maintenance.
The Calcutta High Court dismissed a wife's request for increased maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), noting that the wife's request for increased maintenance after blocking a sizable source of her husband's income amounts to an abuse of the legal system.
Click here to download the original copy of the judgement
