Disposed¶17

Puja Kedia Nee Puja Bajaj v. Amit Kedia

Calcutta HC12 Aug 2024CO/2816/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Article 227 Calcutta High Court; maintenance of major student son; Section 24 Hindu Marriage Act 1955; both parents liable to maintain children in proportion of income; Padmja Sharma v. Ratan Lal Sharma (2000) 4 SCC 266; Addl. District Judge Alipore Order No.44 set aside; fresh consideration and income disclosure directed; C.O. 2816 of 2024; Misc. Case No. 307 of 2021; Matrimonial Suit No. 3094 of 2018.

What did the court decide?

Impugned Order No.44 dated June 18, 2024 set aside; learned Trial Judge requested to decide the Section 24 application afresh in accordance with law; parties to disclose income and supporting documents; C.O. 2816 of 2024 disposed of with the above observations without any order as to costs. ¶17

Puja Kedia Nee Puja Bajaj Vs Amit Kedia — Matrimonial and Divorce | Calcutta HC (2024)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶17

Issue for consideration

Whether the impugned order directing the petitioner (mother) alone to pay Rs.20,000/- per month towards the maintenance of the son, without fixing the father's liability to contribute, calls for interference under Article 227.

¶15

Court's answer

It is well-settled law that the father and an earning mother are both bound to contribute to the maintenance of their children in proportion of their income (relying on Padmja Sharma v. Ratan Lal Sharma, (2000) 4 SCC 266).

¶14

Ratio / Principle

Since the impugned order did not fix the father's liability to share the son's maintenance, it is set aside and the application requires fresh consideration by the learned Trial Judge in accordance with law.

¶15

Key takeaways

Both parties are obliged to disclose their income and documents in support thereof for the effective adjudication of the maintenance application.ratio¶16

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Calcutta High Court, Civil Revisional Jurisdiction — C.O. 2816 of 2024, decided 12.08.2024 (Biswajit Basu, J.). Application under Article 227 against Order No.44 dated 18.06.2024 of the 10th Court, Addl. District Judge, Alipore, in Misc. Case No. 307 of 2021 (husband's S.24, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 application for the son's maintenance, arising out of Matrimonial Suit No. 3094 of 2018). Son had become major during pendency but was still studying. Trial Judge directed the wife alone to pay Rs.20,000/- per month without fixing the father's liability. Held: father and earning mother are both bound to contribute to the children's maintenance in proportion of their income, relying on Padmja Sharma v. Ratan Lal Sharma, (2000) 4 SCC 266; the failure to fix the father's share required fresh consideration, so the impugned order was set aside and the Trial Judge requested to decide afresh, with both parties obliged to disclose income and documents. Revisional application disposed of without costs.

¶1

12.08.2024 Item No.11, DL Ct.19 A.J.

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CIVIL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION

¶3

C.O. 2816 of 2024

¶4

Puja Kedia Nee Puja Bajaj -VsAmit Kedia

¶5

Mr. Ananda Gopal Mukherjee. …for the petitioner. Mr. Amit Kedia. …Petitioner (in person) (via Video Conference).

¶6

The instant application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against Order No.44 dated June 18, 2024 passed by the 10^th Court of the learned Additional District Judge at Alipore, District : 24-Parganas (South) in Misc. Case No. 307 of 2021 arising out of Matrimonial Suit No. 3094 of 2018.

¶7

The petitioner is the wife of the opposite party. She has applied for dissolution of the marriage between the parties by a decree of divorce.

¶8

The opposite party in the said suit had filed an application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for alimony of the only son of the parties which has been registered as the aforementioned misc. case.

¶9

The son of the parties during the pendency of the said misc. has become major.

¶10

The learned Trial Judge by the order impugned has disposed of the said misc. case by directing the

¶11

¶12

petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- per month on account of maintenance of the said son.

¶13

The son is still studying as such requires finanacial support from his earning parents.

¶14

The law is well settled that father and earning mother both bound to contribute to the maintenance of their children in proportion of their income. (See. Padmja Sharma –Vs- Ratan Lal Sharma reported in (2000) 4 SCC 266 ).

¶15

The order impugned has not fixed the liability of the father to share the maintenance of the son as such the application requires a fresh consideration and to facilitate the said exercise, the order impugned is set aside.

¶16

The learned Trial Judge is requested to decide the said application afresh in accordance with law. The parties are obliged to disclose their income and documents in support thereof for the effective adjudication of the said application.

¶17

C.O. 2816 of 2024 is disposed of with the above observations without any order as to costs.

¶18

Urgent Photostat certified copies of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.

¶19

(Biswajit Basu, J.)

Puja Kedia Nee Puja Bajaj v. Amit Kedia

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Puja Kedia Nee Puja Bajaj v. Amit Kedia

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sudip Kar and Anr. Vs Subrata Kumar Paul and Ors.

Manowar Mirja Vs Mirja Mohammad Yousuf and Ors.

Sanjay Sarkar and Ors. Vs Mousumi Sardar

Satya Prakash Jaisal Alias Shaw Vs Arvind Kumar Harbhajanka and Anr.

Subodh Kumar Gupta Vs Pankaj Gupta and Anr.

Chaitali Dey and Ors. Vs Subhas Dutta and Ors.