Dismissed

Manju Mahato v. Baijnath Mahato

Calcutta HC24 Feb 2022CO/332/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Single Judge dismissed the husband's revision under Article 227 challenging an order that enhanced the wife's alimony pendente lite from Rs. 5,500 to Rs. 8,000 per month. The Court held the enhanced amount to be just and reasonable in view of the husband's salary and inflation, finding no impropriety in the impugned order. The revision was dismissed, enforcing the payment of arrear maintenance

What did the court decide?

Both revisional applications dismissed; husband directed to pay enhanced alimony and arrear maintenance as per lower court order.

Manju Mahato Vs Baijnath Mahato — Maintenance and Alimony | Calcutta HC (2022)

¶1

24.02.2022 Ct. 21 D/L 13 ab

¶2

C.O. 332 of 2021

¶3

(Via Video Conference)

¶4

Smt. Manju Mahato

-Vs-

Baijnath Mahato

With

C.O. 628 of 2021

Baijnath Mahato Vs Manju Mahato

¶10

Mr. Somnath Roy Chowdhury,

¶11

… for the petitioner in C.O. 332/21 & the opposite party in C.O. 628/21

¶12

Mr. Sandip Ghosh, Mr. Partha Sarkar

¶13

… for the petitioner in C.O. 628/21 & the opposite party in C.O. 332/21

¶14

Parties are represented by their respective learned advocates.

¶15

Both the revisional applications are taken up for hearing.

¶16

Both the revisional applications are under Article 227 of the Constitution of India filed by the wife and the husband respectively being aggrieved by a common order dated 28.01.2021 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, 3^rd Court, Howrah in Matrimonial Suit No. 311 of 2013 whereby the learned

¶17

¶18

Court below has been pleased to enhance the alimony pendente lite from Rs. 5,500/- to Rs. 8,000/- per month and directed the husband to pay such enhanced alimony pendente lite by 15^th day of every succeeding month and to pay the arrear maintenance alimony pendente lite in six equal monthly instalment commencing from the month of February, 2021 with a rider that the said enhanced alimony pendente lite is subject to adjustment of any order passed under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as well as under the provision of Domestic Violation Act.

¶19

It is the contention of the wife that the enhanced alimony pendente lite is not sufficient and proportionate to the salary, which is being earned by the husband. On the other hand, it is contention of the husband that the Court below has unreasonably enhanced alimony pendente lite from Rs. 5,500/- to Rs. 8,000/- per month.

¶20

It has come on record that the husband is an employee of the Bally Municipality and at present, his take home pay is Rs. 34,587/- per month.

¶21

Keeping in view the present inflation rate and taking into consideration the take home pay of the husband, this Court is of the view that the alimony pendente lite granted by the Court below to the wife to be just and reasonable.

¶22

¶23

Therefore, this Court is of the view that the order impugned does not suffer from any impropriety or material irregularity.

¶24

Both the revisonal applications are dismissed.

¶25

The husband is directed to go on paying the enhanced alimony pendente lite, in the manner as directed by the learned Court below.

¶26

The Court below is directed to proceed with the matrimonial suit filed by the husband subject to his clearance of the arrear alimony pendente lite.

¶27

Connected application, if any, shall also stand disposed of.

¶28

Interim order, if any, stands discharged.

¶29

There shall be no other as to costs.

¶30

All parties shall act on the server copy of this order duly downloaded from the official website of this Court.

¶31

Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, be applied for, be given to the parties, upon compliance of all formalities.

¶32

( Kesang Doma Bhutia, J .)

Manju Mahato v. Baijnath Mahato

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manju Mahato v. Baijnath Mahato

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Biman Pandit and Ors. Vs Sonatan Bag and Ors.

Subrata Chowdhury Vs Gouri Chowhan

Shankar Nath Dutta Vs Tarun Baidya and Ors.

Blue Star Engineering and Electricals Ltd. Health Care System Vs Hlg Memorial Hospital Pvt. Ltd.

Baijnath Mahato Vs Manju Mahato

Bimala Sarkar Vs Arup Kr Sarkar