Disposed

Biswajit Purkayastha v. Miss Chandra Biswas

Gauhati HC22 Jul 2019Crl.Pet./290/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a petition under Section 482 CrPC challenging an interim maintenance order. It held that since an alternative remedy existed under Section 127 CrPC, the petition was not maintainable. The petitioner was directed to approach the trial court for modification.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to file appropriate petition for alteration/modification before the trial court; High Court petitions dismissed.

Biswajit Purkayastha Vs Miss Chandra Biswas — Maintenance and Alimony | Gauhati HC (2019)

¶1

Page No.# 1/3

¶2

GAHC010164672019

¶3

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

¶4

Case No. : I.A.(Crl.) 562/2019

¶5

1:BISWAJIT PURKAYASTHA

¶6

S/O LATE BIPUL CH. PURKAYASTHA, R/O HILL SIDE COLONY, MALIGAON, GATE NO. 1, GUWAHATI 781011, DIST. KAMRUP (M), ASSAM.

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

1:MISS CHANDRA BISWAS

¶9

D/O MR. BIKASH CH. BISWAS, R/O F3, PUBALI ESTATE, GMCH ROAD, GUWAHATI 781005, DIST. KAMRUP (M), ASSAM.

¶10

Advocate for the Petitioner : MS. K JAIN

¶11

Advocate for the Respondent : MR. U C RABHA

¶12

Linked Case : Crl.Pet. 290/2019

¶13

1:BISWAJIT PURKAYASTHA S/O LATE BIPUL CHANDRA PURKAYASTHA R/O HILL SIDE COLONY MALIGAON GATE NO. 1 GUWAHATI-781011 DIST-KAMRUP(M) ASSAM

¶14

VERSUS 1:MISS CHANDRA BISWAS D/O MR BIKASH CHANDRA BISWAS R/O F3 PUBALI ESTATE GMCH ROAD

¶15

Page No.# 2/3

¶16

GUWAHATI-781005 DIST-KAMRUP(M) ASSAM

¶17

Advocate for the Petitioner : MS. K JAIN Advocate for the Respondent : MR. U C RABHA

¶18

BEFORE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE RUMI KUMARI PHUKAN

¶19

O R D E R

¶20

22-07-2019.

¶21

Heard Mr. A. Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. S.M. Sarma, learned counsel for the respondent/wife.

¶22

The present petition under Section 482 CrPC has been preferred challenging the order of interim maintenance, passed by the learned trial Court u/s.125 CrPC, in FC (Crl.) No.45/2018, whereby the petitioner has been directed by the learned trial Court to pay interim maintenance of Rs.10,000/- per month, till disposal of the case, by its order dated 14.02.2018.

¶23

Initially the petitioner filed the Crl. Petition No.290/2019, on the ground that he is physically handicapped and requires regular treatment, as his right leg was damaged upto 50%, for which he is to incur much expenses for his treatment as well apart from other expenses. It was also the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondent/wife is also an earning woman having income of Rs.65,000/- per month, who is working as a teacher.

¶24

During the pendency of the present Criminal Petition, the I.A. (Crl.) No.562/2019 has also been filed by the petitioner with the prayer that due to suffering from acute pain and other difficulties for the injuries on his leg, the attending Doctor has advised the petitioner to go for operation of his right leg for restructuring of the implants, which will much expensive on his part and accordingly prayer has been made for stay of the order of interim maintenance, granted by the Court for a period for one year, as he will not be able to provide such maintenance to the child of the respondent.

¶25

Also heard the learned counsel for the respondent appearing before the Court who prayed for time for

¶26

Page No.# 3/3

¶27

filing their written objection.

¶28

Upon hearing the matter, it is to be noted that the petitioner herein has come forward against the order of interim maintenance, not against the final order and in that sense, it is purely interlocutory order and the petitioner has the remedy to go for alteration and modification of the order u/s.127 CrPC.

¶29

The learned counsel for the petitioner has however draw the attention to the Court towards the fact that the respondent/wife who being the earning member has no necessity to provide interim maintenance by the Court, as she is able to maintain herself and the child. Although the petitioner is ready to bear certain amount towards the child but at this stage, he is unable to bear the aforesaid amount for few months, which may be for a year.

¶30

The things remain that the present application has been preferred u/s.482 CrPC, against the interim maintenance, passed by the learned trial Court which is itself not maintainable, there being alternative remedy before the parties, as indicated above.

¶31

In the fitness of the matter, the present two petition are disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to file an appropriate petition before the learned trial Court for alteration/modification of the order, as sought for, before this Court and the learned trial Court will disposed of the same with appropriate order on the application, so made by the petitioner.

¶32

The matters stand disposed of accordingly.

¶33

JUDGE

¶34

Comparing Assistant

Biswajit Purkayastha v. Miss Chandra Biswas

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Biswajit Purkayastha v. Miss Chandra Biswas

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Md. Murshed Ali Vs Mustt. Sanjida Khatoon

Sohidul Hoque and Anr. Vs the State of Assam and Anr.

Sri Bipin Basumatary Vs the State of Assam and 8 Ors.

Rohan Kumar Jha Vs Dipak Kr. Chakraborty

Rajkumar Chaudhury Vs the State of Assam

Biswajit Purkayastha Vs Miss Chandra Biswas