Dismissed¶31

Asim Das v. Jayasree Das(Saha)

Calcutta HC6 Jan 2025CO/231/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Calcutta High Court, Jalpaiguri Circuit Bench (Appellate Side); CO 231 of 2024; Sri Asim Das v. Smt. Jayasree Das (Saha); alimony pendente lite quantum; Section 24 Hindu Marriage Act; Article 227 Constitution of India revision; Mat. Suit No. 414 of 2018; Order No. 37 dated 11.06.2024, ADJ 2nd Court Siliguri; income-expenditure discrepancy in affidavit of assets and liability; Rs. 14,500 per month maintenance upheld; revision dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The Trial Court's finding that the husband's declared expenditure exceeding his declared income was a discrepancy justifying disbelief of his claimed income is perfectly justified. ¶26

Asim Das Vs Jayasree Das(Saha) — Matrimonial and Divorce | Calcutta HC (2025)

¶1

S/L 5 06.01.2025 Court. No. 3 Suvayan

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CIRCUIT BENCH AT JALPAIGURI APPELLATE SIDE

¶3

CO 231 of 2024

¶4

Sri Asim Das Vs.

¶5

Smt. Jayasree Das (Saha)

¶6

Mr. Nabankur Paul Ms. Sutapa Sen Paul Ms. Bedasruti Bose Md. Apzail Ansari

¶7

…for the petitioner.

¶8

In this revisional application as filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India the Order No. 37 dated 11.06.2024 as passed by learned Additional District Judge, 2^nd Court, Siliguri in Mat. Suit No. 414 of 2018 is impugned.

¶9

By the said impugned order learned Trial Court while disposing an application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act directed the plaintiff/husband of Mat. Suit No. 414 of 2018 to pay alimony pendente lite at the rate of Rs. 14,500/- per month for his wife and her five and half years old daughter. The husband who is the plaintiff of Mat. Suit No. 414 of 2018 is aggrieved with the quantum of the alimony pendente lite and thus preferred the instant revisional application.

¶10

In support of the instant revisional application

¶11

learned Advocate on behalf of the

¶12

petitioner/husband at the very outset draws attention of this Court to page Nos. 31 and 33 of the instant revisional application. It is submitted that

¶13

¶14

after passing of the impugned order the petitioner/husband had obtained an employment from which he used to earn Rs. 15,000/- per month. It is further submitted that while passing the impugned order learned Trial Court failed to visualize the actual income of the present revisionist/husband and thus awarded a sum in favour of the opposite party/wife which is exorbitant and the present petitioner/husband is not capable of paying the same.

This Court has given anxious consideration over the submission of the learned Advocate for the petitioner/husband. This Court has minutely perused the impugned order as passed by the learned Trial Court.

¶20

On careful consideration of the entire materials as placed before this Court it appears that from the affidavit of asset and liability as submitted by the opposite party/wife before the learned Trial Court it would reveal that her monthly expenses is Rs. 12,500/- and that she has got no independent source of income.

¶21

It has also been stated by the wife that her husband that is the petitioner herein is a commerce graduate and he uses to run a computer shop in the name and style of “Supreme Infotech”.

¶22

Before the Trial Court such assertion was denied and disputed by the husband and in his affidavit of asset

¶23

¶24

and liability the husband had stated that his income was Rs. 10,000/- per month while his expenses about Rs. 16,000/- per month. Learned Trial Court while passing the impugned order noticed such discrepancy by holding that a person’s expenses cannot be more than his income and thus disbelieved the case of the husband.

¶25

¶26

It appears to this Court that the learned Trial Court’s finding with regard to the alleged discrepancy of income and expenditure is perfectly justified.

¶27

It further appears to this Court that it is undisputed that for some reason or other the opposite party/wife herein is living in separation with her minor daughter. It is also undisputed that the opposite party/wife herein has got no independent income of her own at all. It further appears that the amount as awarded by the learned Trial Court that is Rs. 14,500/- per month towards alimony pendente lite is very much just and proper for living a decent life for the opposite party/wife and her minor daughter.

¶28

Considering the entire circumstances this Court find

¶29

no reason to interfere with the order impugned. This Court considers that the instant revisional application has got no merit at all and is this dismissed.

¶30

¶31

With the aforementioned observations, the instant revisional application being CO 231 of 2024 is hereby disposed of.

¶32

Urgent photostat certified copies of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance with all the necessary formalities.

¶33

(Partha Sarathi Sen, J.)

Asim Das v. Jayasree Das(Saha)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Asim Das v. Jayasree Das(Saha)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Subhas Kumar Agarwal Vs State of West Bengal & Anr.

Mamta Hansda Vs State of West Bengal and Anr.

Vikash Singh @ Vicky Vs State of West Bengal

Arshad @ Arsad Gazi Vs State of West Bengal

Trisha Mandal(Roy) Vs State of West Bengal & Anr.

Ram Charan Paul Vs State of West Bengal & Anr.