Dismissed¶¶28

Subir Kumar Ghosh v. Gayatri Ghosh

Calcutta HC20 Feb 2026FA/30/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Review of permanent alimony order dismissed; grounds under Order 47 absent; alimony Rs.6,00,000/- payable by bank transfer upon furnishing bank particulars; husband's modification application (CAN 3 of 2026) disposed of; wife's enhancement plea rejected for want of new evidence and changed circumstances; no error apparent on face of record; FA 30 of 2010, Subir Kumar Ghosh v. Gayatri Ghosh; RVW 78 of 2026; CAN 1 and CAN 3 of 2026; bench: Rajasekhar Mantha, J. and Rai Chattopadhyay, J.; matrimonial maintenance/alimony appeal; decided 17.04.2026.

What did the court decide?

None granted on the review: RVW 78 of 2026 dismissed and consequently CAN 1 of 2026 dismissed (alimony order untouched); CAN 3 of 2026 disposed of with payment directed upon bank particulars being furnished; no order as to costs. ¶¶28

Subir Kumar Ghosh Vs Gayatri Ghosh — Calcutta HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶28

Issue for consideration

Whether the husband's application (CAN 3 of 2026) for modification of the order dated 18.02.2026 as corrected by order dated 27.02.2026 — concerning payment of permanent alimony by bank transfer when bank particulars were not furnished — warrants any change. +1 more

¶¶14

Court's answer

Under the order dated 18.02.2026 (as corrected), payment of permanent alimony is required to be made upon bank particulars being furnished; on that view CAN 3 of 2026 stands disposed of.

¶¶18

Ratio / Principle

No new evidence has been brought on record in CAN 1 of 2026 and no changed circumstances have been indicated to the Court therein.

¶¶24

Key takeaways

There is no error apparent on the face of the record.ratio¶¶25
There are no grounds acceptable under Order 47 to review the order dated 18.02.2026 as corrected later; accordingly RVW 78 of 2026 and CAN 1 of 2026 are dismissed.ratio¶¶27

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Division Bench order (Rajasekhar Mantha and Rai Chattopadhyay, JJ.) in FA 30 of 2010 (Subir Kumar Ghosh v. Gayatri Ghosh): (i) the husband's CAN 3 of 2026 seeking modification of the order dated 18.02.2026 as corrected on 27.02.2026 — over payment of permanent alimony by bank transfer despite non-furnishing of bank particulars — was disposed of, the Court holding that payment is required to be made upon bank particulars being furnished; (ii) review of the same order (RVW 78 of 2026 in aid of CAN 1 of 2026) on the plea that the alimony of Rs.6,00,000/- is grossly insufficient for the wife's future requirements was dismissed: no new evidence or changed circumstances were shown, there was no error apparent on the face of the record, and no grounds acceptable under Order 47 existed for review; no order as to costs.

¶1

17.04.2026 Court No.13 Item Nos.1-2 pk

¶2

FA 30 of 2010 CAN 3 of 2026

¶3

Subir Kumar Ghosh

¶4

Vs.

¶5

Gayatri Ghosh With RVW 78 of 2026 CAN 1 of 2026 Gayatri Ghosh

¶6

Vs.

¶7

Subir Kumar Ghosh

¶8

Mr. Saumyajit Ghosal, Mrs. Manideepa Paul (Roy), Mrs. Soma Dey

¶9

…. for the appellant.

¶10

Mr. Sayantan Adhya

¶11

… for the respondent

¶12

Re :CAN 3 of 2026

¶13

Affidavit of service filed in Court is taken on record.

¶14

CAN 3 of 2026 is an application filed by the husband praying for modification of the order dated 18.02.2026 as corrected by order dated 27.02.2026.

¶15

Particular reference of this Court is gone to last line of paragraph 12 where payment of permanent alimony shall be made by bank transfer.

¶16

It is submitted despite repeated requests the respondent has not furnished the bank particulars of the opposite party/wife.

¶17

¶18

It is clear from the order-in-question that payment is required to be made upon bank particulars being furnished.

¶19

In that view of the matter CAN 3 of 2026 is disposed of.

¶20

Re :CAN 1 of 2026

¶21

CAN 1 of 2026 has been filed in aid of RVW 78 of 2026. Review is sought of this Court’s order dated 18.02.2026 as corrected subsequently on the ground that alimony of Rs.6,00,000/- is grossly insufficient to meet the future requirements of the opposite party/wife.

¶22

It is submitted that the son is 33 years old. He is masters in commerce and does accounting work for a chartered accountant.

¶23

Apart from the fact that this Court has found on the earlier occasion and had observed orally that the opposite party/wife could have easily secured a job after separation from her husband or at least tried to take up some vocation of business. It appears that the opposite party wife has chosen to rely entirely on the alimony being provided by the husband.

¶24

Be that as it may, there are absolutely no new evidence brought on record in CAN 1 of 2026 nor have any changed circumstances been indicated to Court in the said CAN 1 of 2026.

¶25

There is no error apparent on the face of record.

¶26

¶27

In the back drop of the above, this Court is of the view that there are no grounds acceptable under Order 47 to review the order dated 18.02.2026 as corrected later.

¶28

RVW 78 of 2026 is dismissed. Consequently, CAN 1 of 2026 is also dismissed.

¶29

There will be no order as to costs.

¶30

All parties are directed to act on a server copy of this order duly downloaded from the official website of this Court.

¶31

(Rajasekhar Mantha, J.)

¶32

(Rai Chattopadhyay, J.)

Subir Kumar Ghosh v. Gayatri Ghosh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Subir Kumar Ghosh v. Gayatri Ghosh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Oindrila Apartment Flat Owners Association and Others Vs Kasturi Chowdhury, Chairperson South Dum Dum Municipality and Another

Expadable Enterprise Private Limited and Anr. Vs West Bengal Electricity Regulatory Commission and Ors.

Sumangal Ispat Private Limited and Anr. Vs West Bengal Electricity Regulatory Commission

Khairun Bibi Vs Subhas Chandra Roy & Ors.

Sujit Mukherjee Vs Bela Mukherjee & Ors.

Ram Chandra Pramanik Vs State of West Bengal