Partly allowed

Akhtara Begam @ Akhtara Bewa v. Manirul Islam

Calcutta HC2 Mar 2022CRR/913/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an application under Section 401 and 482 CrPC, the High Court held that the maintenance award of Rs. 5,000 per month to the petitioner was low considering the respondent son's salary of Rs. 33,000. The court set aside the previous order and directed payment of Rs. 7,500 per month from 27.01.2020. The revision was partly allowed.

What did the court decide?

Maintenance of Rs. 7,500 per month directed to be paid by the respondent from 27.01.2020. Previous order of Rs. 5,000 set aside.

Akhtara Begam @ Akhtara Bewa Vs Manirul Islam — Maintenance and Alimony | Calcutta HC (2022)

¶1

02-03-2022 Subha Item-126 Ct -.34

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Criminal Revisional Jurisdiction (Via video-conference)

¶3

C.R.R 913 of 2020

¶4

In Re : An application under Section 401 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

¶5

In the matter of : Aktara Begum @ Akhtara Bewa …Petitioner.

¶6

Mr. Mujibar Rahaman Mr. Md. Hasibur Rahaman Mr. Marghoob A. Salik

¶7

……for the Petitioner.

¶8

Affidavit of service filed by the petitioner be kept with the

¶9

record.

¶10

Learned advocate for the petitioner submits that the opposite party is the son of the present petitioner and presently employed as a primary school teacher whose service was obtained after the no objection was granted by the petitioner pursuant to the death of the husband of the present petitioner.

¶11

Learned advocate for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this court to the fact that the opposite party presently is earning Rs.33,000/- per month as has been held by the learned Magistrate and which is an admitted position .

¶12

Having regard to the earnings of the present opposite party,

¶13

I am of the opinion that an amount of Rs.5000/- so awarded

¶14

¶15

should be reconsidered considering the age, expenses which are involved and the quantum of salary earned by the opposite party (which was obtained pursuant to the death of his father).

¶16

Accordingly the sum of Rs.5000/- so awarded by way of maintenance is, hereby, set aside and the opposite party would pay a sum of Rs.7500/- per month from the date of the order i.e., 27.01.2020.

¶17

With the aforesaid observations and findings the revisional application being CRR 913 of 2020 is partly allowed.

¶18

All pending applications, if any, in connection with the revisional application, are consequently disposed of.

¶19

Interim order, if any, is hereby vacated.

¶20

All concerned parties are to act in terms of a website copy of this order duly downloaded from the official website of this court.

¶21

( Tirthankar Ghosh, J. )

¶22

Akhtara Begam @ Akhtara Bewa v. Manirul Islam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Akhtara Begam @ Akhtara Bewa v. Manirul Islam

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

Bindu Bihani Vs Union of India and Ors.

Sayan Basu Vs Sutrishna Basu & Anr.

Trisha Das Nee Sarkar Vs Sajal Das

Dinobandhyu Das Bairagya Vs State of West Bengal and Anr.

Champa Ghosh Vs Prabir Ghosh

Soumik Bhattacharyya Vs Tanumita Bhattacharyya