Dismissed¶16

Shri. Batchala Ramesh v. Smti. L.Meena and Anr.

Calcutta HC18 Mar 2026CRR/7/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Calcutta High Court (Circuit Bench at Port Blair), CRR/7/2026, Tirthankar Ghosh J., decided 18.03.2026 - husband's revision against Family Court, Port Blair maintenance order dated 11.09.2025 in Misc. Case No 46 of 2021 awarding Rs.12,000/- per month (Rs.8,000/- to wife, Rs.4,000/- to minor child) from date of application; quantum held not excessive against assessed net income of Rs.45,932/-; no illegality found; revision dismissed, pending applications disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Considering the petitioner's assessed net income of Rs.45,932/- (Forest Department pay slips, July 2023 to September 2023), the quantum of maintenance awarded (Rs.12,000/- per month: Rs.8,000/- to the wife and Rs.4,000/- to the minor child) is not in excess and is in consonance with the settled principles of law. ¶15

Shri. Batchala Ramesh Vs Smti. L.Meena and Anr. — Calcutta HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶16

Issue for consideration

Whether the quantum of maintenance awarded by the learned Family Court is excessive, given the petitioner's pleaded visual disability and heavy transportation charges, medical expenses and personal loan burden deducted from his salary. +1 more

¶12

Court's answer

¶15

Ratio / Principle

Maintenance having been awarded from the date of the application, no illegality is found in the impugned order dated 11th September 2025; it does not call for any interference, and the revisional application CRR/7/2026 is dismissed.

¶16

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

CRR/7/2026 (High Court at Calcutta, Circuit Bench at Port Blair; Tirthankar Ghosh, J.; decided March 18, 2026): Revision by the husband-petitioner, Shri. Batchala Ramesh, against the order dated 11th September 2025 of the Family Court, Port Blair in Misc. Case No 46 of 2021, which awarded maintenance of Rs.12,000/- per month from the date of application - Rs.8,000/- to the opposite party-wife, Smti. L. Meena, and Rs.4,000/- to the minor child. The petitioner, pleading visual disability and heavy transportation charges, medical expenses and a personal loan deducted from his Forest Department salary, contended the deduction would leave him a paltry sum with which to maintain himself and his old mother. The Court noted that the Trial Court, on assessing pay slips for July 2023 to September 2023, had fixed the petitioner's net income at Rs.45,932/-, and held that the quantum awarded was not in excess and was in consonance with the settled principles of law. Finding no illegality in the impugned order, the Court declined interference, dismissed the revisional application, and disposed of pending applications, if any.

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA [ CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR ]

¶3

¶4

CRR/7/2026

¶5

Shri. Batchala Ramesh

¶6

Vs.

¶7

Smti. L. Meena and Another

¶8

Mr. K. Sabir … for the petitioner

¶9

Ms. Babita Das … for the respondents/OPs

¶10

March 18, 2026 [SR] Item No.4

¶11

Learned advocate appearing for the petitioner has challenged the order dated 11^th September 2025 passed by the Family Court, Port Blair in Misc. Case No 46 of 2021.

¶12

The grievance of the petitioner is that he is suffering from visual disability and lacks the efficiency of a normal person. It was pleaded before this Court that transportation charges of the petitioner and his medical expenses, including his personal loan is huge, which if deducted from the salary, would leave the petitioner with paltry sum from which it would be difficult for the petitioner to maintain himself and his old mother.

¶13

Learned advocate for the opposite party submits that the petitioner’s mother receives pension as petitioner’s father was a government servant. However, the quantum which has been awarded by the learned Family Court is not in excess and less than the guidelines which have been set by the precedents of the different Courts.

¶14

I have taken into account the order passed by the learned Family Court which has granted a sum of Rs.12,000/- per month out of which Rs.8000/- towards the opposite party-wife and another Rs.4000/- towards the minor child.

¶15

Having considered that the learned Trial Court on an assessment of the pay slip for the month of July, 2023 to September,2023 of the Forest Department, where the petitioner was employed, considered the net income of the petitioner as Rs.45,932/-, I am of the opinion that the quantum of maintenance awarded is not in excess and is in consonance with the settled principles of law.

¶16

Having considered the same and the maintenance being awarded from the date of the application, I find no illegality in the impugned order. As such, the order dated 11^th September, 2025 do not call for any interference. Consequently, the revisional application being CRR/7/2026 is dismissed.

¶17

Pending application, if any, is consequently disposed of.

¶18

( Tirthankar Ghosh, J. )

Shri. Batchala Ramesh v. Smti. L.Meena and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri. Batchala Ramesh v. Smti. L.Meena and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Manoj Kumar Mandal Vs the Superintending Engineer and Anr.

S.Malliga Vs the Superintending Engineer and Anr.

Debasish Roy Vs State (U.T. of Andaman and Nicobar Islands)

Mohammed Sajad Vs the State

Smti. T.Kedaramma Vs the Superintending Engineer and Ors.

Shri. V.K.M. Mohammed Miskin Vs the Andaman and Nicobar Administration and Ors.