Allowed

Soma Mitra Nee Gharai v. Tanmay Mitra

Calcutta HC17 Jun 2022CRR/3095/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a maintenance matter, the High Court revised an interim maintenance order. Finding the trial court failed to consider the husband's unchallenged income from tax returns, the High Court enhanced the amount and directed retrospective payment from the application date.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order enhanced to Rs. 10,000 per month for wife and Rs. 10,000 for son from filing date; arrear paid in 12 installments by July 31, 2023.

Soma Mitra Nee Gharai Vs Tanmay Mitra — Maintenance and Alimony | Calcutta HC (2022)

¶1

32 17.6.2022 sb

¶2

CRR 3095 of 2018

¶3

In the matter of : Smt. Soma Mitra nee Gharai

¶4

…….Petitioner

¶5

Mr. Krishna Das Poddar ...for the Petitioner

¶6

Inspite of service, none appeared on behalf of the opposite party.

¶7

No accommodation sought for on behalf of opposite party.

¶8

Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order dated 9.7.2018 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, 2^nd Court, Barasat, North 24 Parganas in M-78 of 2017, in connection with the wife/petitioner’s prayer for maintenance, the present revisional application has been preferred. By the impugned order, learned trial court granted interim maintenance of Rs. 4,000/- per month in favour of the petitioner and Rs. 3,000/- per month for her minor son, from the date of the order till disposal of the case.

¶9

It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the marriage between the petitioner and the opposite party took place according to the Hindu rights and customs in the year 2008 and it was duly registered under the Hindu Marriage Act. The parties were blessed with a son who is presently aged about 12 years. The petitioner was driven out by the opposite party from her matrimonial home on 4^th December, 2016 as the petitioner could not fulfil their demand. Presently the said minor son studying in a school at Salt Lake namely Siksha Niketan. So long as the petitioner is staying at her parent’s house, no maintenance

¶10

¶11

amount was given by the husband/opposite party, knowing fully well that the petitioner is unable to maintain herself and their minor son. The husband is a businessman dealing with the Real estate and has developed many multistoried buildings in Rajarhat-Gopalpur, having substantial income of Rs. 1.5 lakh to Rs. 2 lakh per month and he is an income tax assessee. The petitioner has prayed for maintenance of Rs. 20 thousand for herself and Rs. 20 thousand for her son.

¶12

Learned advocate for the petitioner Mr. Poddar further contended that despite earning a lucrative sum by the husband (which is evident from the documents filed as annexture) from his real estate business and from other sources, learned court below opined that the wife could not prove her husband’s income and as such Rs.7,000/- was awarded out of which Rs. 4 ,000/- was awarded to the petitioner/wife and Rs. 3 ,000/- for the minor son.

¶13

Mr. Poddar, further submits that the order of interim maintenance is not only scanty but also it is not awarded from the date of the filing of petition and as such the order impugned dated 9.7.2018 has been passed without considering the income of the husband which prima facie appears from the various real estate transactions made by the husband. The income tax return in the year 2017-18 shows that the gross annual income of the opposite party/husband is Rs. 3,84,504/-. He further submits that though from the income tax return in the year 2016-17, it appears that the petitioner’s gross annual income was Rs. 2,78,651/- but it does not reflect the true state of affair because when the parties were residing together, various trade licences were obtained in the

¶14

¶15

name of petitioner/wife and that is why income tax return was filed by her husband in the name of wife/petitioner.

¶16

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and that statement of income of opposite party remains unchallenged including the income tax return as submitted by the petitioner the impugned order dated 9.7.2018 is modified to the extent that the opposite party/husband will pay interim maintenance of Rs. 10,000/- for the petitioner and Rs. 10,000/- for the minor son from the date of filing the maintenance application till the disposal of the case, in default, the petitioner will be at liberty to put the order for execution before the concerned Magistrate. The opposite party shall pay monthly maintenance as above within 7^th of each succeeding month and the arrear amount of maintenance shall be paid by opposite party in twelve monthly installments by 31^st July, 2023. The learned Magistrate is directed to dispose of the application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure being M-78 of 2017 as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of six months from the date of this order.

¶17

CRR 3095 of 2018 is accordingly disposed of.

¶18

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

¶19

(Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee, J.)

Soma Mitra Nee Gharai v. Tanmay Mitra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Soma Mitra Nee Gharai v. Tanmay Mitra

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

Kalyan Krishna Nandi Vs Nita Nandi(Mani) & Anr.

Rajib Bhattacharjee & Anr. Vs State of West Bengal & Anr.

Partha Sana Vs State of West Bengal & Ors.

Ganpatlal Agarwala & Anr. Vs CBI

Tata Motor Finance Ltd. & Anr. Vs Dilip Kumar Hazra & the State of W.B

Smt Anita Das Vs State of West Bengal & Anr.