PRASENJIT MANDAL,J. - (1.) CHALLENGE is to the Order No.22 dated April 11, 2012 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, 3 rd Court, Hooghly in Matrimonial Suit No.624 of 2010 thereby disposing an application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act filed by the husband / petitioner herein.
(2.) THE husband / petitioner herein instituted the aforesaid matrimonial proceeding under Section 13(1)(ia)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act. In that matrimonial suit, the wife / opposite party herein filed an application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act praying for alimony. By the impugned order, the learned Trial Judge granted alimony pendente lite at the rate of Rs.3,500/- per month for the wife and Rs.3,000/- per month for the minor daughter and litigation costs of Rs.10,000/- to the wife. Being aggrieved by such orders, the husband has preferred this application. Now, the question is whether the impugned order should be sustained. Upon hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and on going through the materials on record, I find that previously, the wife / opposite party herein instituted a proceeding under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. and in that proceeding, the learned Magistrate granted interim maintenance to the tune of Rs.3,500/- per month for the wife and Rs.1,500/- per month for the minor daughter w.e.f. the date of application. While dealing with application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, the learned Trial Judge has made an observation as appearing in inner page no.s 2 & 3 of the certified copy of the impugned order on the maintenance granted by the learned Magistrate, but, while passing the final order on the said application, I find that the learned Trial Judge did not consider the interim maintenance as granted by the learned Magistrate. But, he has simply recorded in the observation that the maintenance allowance that may be granted under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. in future days shall be always adjusted with the amount of maintenance pendente lite granted by the learned Additional District Judge. As per materials on record, I find that the husband / petitioner herein challenged the interim order of maintenance before the Hon 'ble Court and then by an order dated August 25, 2011, this Hon 'ble Court directed that the interim order of maintenance shall be stayed subject to the condition that the husband goes on paying maintenance to the wife at the rate of Rs.2,000/- per month for the wife and Rs.1,000/- per month for the child. As per materials on record, the order of attachment was issued and the Controlling Officer of the husband at his place of service had already started deduction of Rs.9,328/- per month (i.e. Rs.5,000/- as interim maintenance plus Rs.3,800/- as arrears and Rs.528/- as postal charge) from the pay and allowances of the husband / petitioner herein. This will be apparent from the papers, such as, the letter of Controlling Officer of the husband appearing at page no.19, pay slips appearing from the page no.s 21 to 25, etc. By the impugned order, the learned Trial Judge has recorded that the final outcome in the maintenance proceeding under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. in future days shall be adjusted against the amount of maintenance pendente lite granted by this Court. But, I find from the materials mentioned earlier that the employer of the husband had already started deduction for maintenance from the salary of the husband by way of attachment. So, the impugned order that adjustment against future maintenance to be awarded under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. becomes meaningless.
(3.) UNDER the circumstances, since the effect of attachment of the salary of the husband has not been taken into consideration in the impugned order, in view of the decision of Sudeep Chaudhary v. Radha Chaudhary reported in (1997) 11 SCC 286, the adjustment is essential. It is not known whether the proceeding under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. or the civil revision arising from the interim order has been disposed of. This being the position, I am of the view that the impugned order should be set aside and the learned Trial Judge shall be directed to hear out the matter afresh on taking into consideration the subsequent events, if any, relating to interim maintenance as granted by the Judicial Magistrate or the other civil revision. The application succeeds and is, therefore, allowed. The impugned order is hereby set aside.;