Pampa Parial Bhandari Vs Sankar Bhandari @ Shanku and Another

2. The revisional application has been preferred challenging an order dated 4^th November, 2024 passed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, 6^th Court, Paschim Medinipur in connection with Criminal Appeal Case No. 33 of 2024 arising out of Misc. Case No. 48 of 2024 under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 whereby the husband/opposite party has been directed to pay Rs.10,000/-

¶12

2

¶13

per month from the date of filing i.e., 25^th January, 2024 to the wife/petitioner, presently pending before the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Ghatal, Paschim Medinipur.

¶14

3. The petitioner/wife herein has prayed for enhancement of the quantum of maintenance granted by the trial court and in appeal by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 6^th Court, Paschim Medinipur, the same was enhanced, but not to meet the requirements of the petitioner and her child (school going).

¶15

4. The order of interim maintenance was passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ghatal, Paschim Medinipur on 18^th March, 2024. It was an ex parte order as the husband/opposite party failed to appear and a sum of Rs.5,000/- was granted as an interim maintenance being Rs.3,000/- for the wife and Rs.2,000/- for the son.

¶16

5. In appeal by the wife/petitioner herein, learned Additional Sessions Judge considered the materials on record.

¶17

6. It appears that the learned counsel for the opposite party/husband did not appear before the Sessions Court to make an oral argument, in spite of several efforts by the Court.

¶18

7. The husband/opposite party also did not file any affidavit of assets or liabilities.

¶19

8. The learned Additional District and Sessions Judge on being convinced that the husband/opposite party is a Dentist by profession held that his monthly income may be Rs.30,000/- to

¶20

3

¶21

Rs.40,000/- per month and in spite of considering the fact that the petitioner/wife has a school going son, the Court enhanced the sum to only Rs.10,000/- per month (total).

¶22

9. In spite of service the husband/opposite party has not appeared before this Court also.

¶23

10. Considering the fact that the husband/opposite party is a Dentist by profession and has his own clinic, this Court is of the view that a sum of Rs.10,000/- is not sufficient for the wife with no independent income and with a school going child.

¶24

11. Considering the fact that the husband/opposite party is a Dentist by profession, the quantum of interim maintenance as granted by the Appellate Court is hereby enhanced to Rs.25,000/- (twenty five thousand) per month as interim maintenance, which is to be paid by the opposite party/husband by the 10^th each month.

¶25

12. The impugned order is modified accordingly.

¶26

13. The said order shall remain in force till the Misc case is disposed of finally by the trial court in accordance with law.

¶27

14. It is made clear that the trial court shall come to its independent findings at the time of disposal of the Misc. case finally and the final quantum of maintenance shall be decided by the trial court in accordance with law.

¶28

15. The revisional application being CRR 5021 of 2024 stands disposed of.

¶29

4

¶30

16. Connected applications, if any, stand disposed of.

¶31

17. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.

¶32

18. Let a copy of this order be sent to the trial court.

¶33

19. Urgent Photostat certified copy of this judgment, if applied