Sri Sujoy Mitra Vs Smt. Rimashree Paul

D/O SRI DILIP PAUL, R/O RUBBER BAGAN, NEAR TILOTTAMA BIBAH BHAWAN, WARD NO. 16, P.O. AND P.S.- TEZPUR, DISTRICT- SONITPUR, ASSAM, PIN- 784001. MOBILE NO.- 7086400483

¶11

Advocate for the petitioner(s): Mr. Darakullah

¶12

Advocate for the respondent(s): Mr. A Ganguly

¶13

B E F O R E

¶14

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH

ORDER

06.06.2025

Page No.# 2/5

Heard Mr. D Ullah, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. A Ganguly, the learned counsel, who appears on behalf of the respondent.

¶19

The present proceedings has been initiated challenging the order dated 03.02.2024 passed in Misc.(J) Case No.48/2022, whereby the Court of the learned Additional District Judge (FTC) Sonitpur, Tezpur had directed the petitioner to pay maintenance pendente lite @ Rs.15000/- per month to the petitioner from the date of filing of the petition until further order(s) and also directed to pay Rs.30,000/- as costs of the proceedings.

¶20

Mr. D Ullah, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Rs.30,000/which is the costs of the proceedings had been duly paid. However, he submits that an amount of Rs.15000/- so arrived at as maintenance pendente lite per month is a steep amount taking into account that the petitioner’s monthly income is Rs.33000/- He further referring to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Rajnesh Vs. Neha & Anr., reported in (2021) 2 SCC 324, submitted that both the parties having filed the affidavits of Assets and Liabilities, it was incumbent upon the Court of the learned Additional District Judge (FTC) Sonitpur, Tezpur to pass an order of maintenance pendente lite after taking into consideration the same. He further submitted that a perusal of the order dated 03.02.2024 would show that there is no application of mind of the Court below in respect to the affidavits so filed, except mentioning that both the parties have duly filed their affidavits of Assets and Liabilities.

¶21

Page No.# 3/5

¶22

Per contra, Mr. A Ganguly, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the amount of Rs.15000/- itself is a very less amount, taking into account that the said amount includes the care and needs of the child, who is with the respondent. He further submitted that the respondent has no other source of income, whereas the petitioner not only has income, but also has various lands and properties. He, therefore, submitted that there is no question of interference.

¶23

This Court had duly perused the order dated 03.02.2024 passed in Misc. (J).Case No.48/2022 as well as the respective affidavits so filed pertaining to the Assets and Liabilities. This Court had also perused the impugned order, wherein there is no discussion in respect to the respective affidavits of Assets and Liabilities.

¶24

Considering the above, this Court interferes with the order dated 03.02.2024 passed in Misc.(J). Case No.48/2022 and directs that Court of the learned Additional District Judge (FTC) Sonitpur, Tezpur to decide the said application afresh on the basis of the respective affidavits of Assets and Liabilities.

¶25

This Court further directs both the parties to file afresh the affidavits of Assets and Liabilities and also the latest Income Tax Returns, if any, of both the parties.

¶26

Page No.# 4/5

¶27

This Court further duly takes note of that vide the order impugned dated 03.02.2024, there was a direction for payment of an amount of Rs.15000/- per month, as maintenance pendente lite as well as also a direction to pay Rs.30,000/- as costs of the proceedings. This Court makes it clear that the interference made to the order dated 03.02.2024 shall not in any manner be construed as an interference insofar as the direction to pay Rs.30,000/- as costs of the proceedings. Further to that, taking into account that since February 2024, there was a direction to pay the maintenance pendente lite @Rs.15000/per month, this Court directs the petitioner herein to continue to make such payment till the disposal of Misc.(J).Case No.48/2022, which is now restored to the file vide the instant order.

¶28

Accordingly, the instant revision petition stands disposed of with the following observation(s) and direction(s):

¶29

(i). The order dated 03.02.2024 is interfered with thereby directing the Court of the learned Additional District Judge (FTC) Sonitpur, Tezpur to decide afresh the Misc.(J).Case No.48/2022

¶30

(ii). The interference so made to the order dated 03.02.2024 shall not be construed as interference insofar as the payment of costs of Rs.30,000/awarded in favour of the respondent herein.

¶31

(iii). This Court further restores Misc.(J).Case No.48/2022 to the file of the learned Additional District Judge(FTC) Sonitpur, Tezpur.

¶32

(iv). This Court further directs both the parties to file fresh affidavits of Assets and Liabilities thereby bringing on record the latest Income Tax Returns,

¶33

Page No.# 5/5

¶34

if any, of the parties.

¶35

(v). This Court further directs the petitioner herein to continue to make payment of the amount of Rs.15000/- per month as decided vide the order dated 03.02.2024 till the disposal of the Misc.(J).Case No.48/2022.

¶36

(vi). It is further directed that as both the parties are duly represented they shall appear before the Court of the learned Additional District Judge (FTC) Sonitpur, Tezpur on 05.07.2025.

¶37

(vii). The petitioner would be at liberty to request the learned Court below for an early disposal of Misc.(J).Case No.48/2022 which is being restored by the present proceedings.

¶38

(viii). It is further observed that this Court had interfered with the order dated 03.02.2024 only on the ground that the learned Court did not consider the respective affidavits of Assets and Liabilities. Under such circumstances, the Court of the learned Additional District Judge (FTC) Sonitpur, Tezpur shall decide the said application being Misc.(J).Case No.48/2022 afresh without being influenced by the order dated 03.02.2024 as well as the instant order.

¶39

With the above, the instant proceedings stands disposed of.

¶40

JUDGE

¶41

Comparing Assistant

Sri Sujoy Mitra v. Smt. Rimashree Paul

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Sujoy Mitra v. Smt. Rimashree Paul

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dipu Mani Kalita Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Haji Idris Ali Laskar and Anr. Vs on the Death of Md. Ibrahim Ali Laskar His Legal Heirs Namely

Kakojan Kristi Kendra and 2 Ors. Vs Prodip Dutta and Anr.

Shriram General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Isurauddin Ali @ Md. Yaseruddin and 2 Ors.

Dalimi Devi Vs Giridhar Sarma

Golera Begum Vs Nur Mohammod Sarkar