Asim Kumar Mondal, J. - (1.) THE petitioner Smt. Jharna Ghosh wife of opposite party No. 2 Sri Tapan Ghosh has filed the present application under section 401 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking for appropriate order/necessary direction for alteration, revision and/or increasion of the maintenance allowance awarded by Ld. Judicial Magistrate, Second Court, Chandernagore, Hooghly in Miscellaneous case No. 24 of 2007. The case of the petitioner is that she is the legally married wife of opposite party No. 2 Sri Tapan Ghosh. The O.P. No. 2 Sri Tapan Ghosh refused to maintain petitioner and deserted her since after marriage without arranging or providing any kind of maintenance for the livelihood of the present petitioner. The petitioner as such having no other alternative and any source of income to maintain herself filed petition under section 125 Criminal Procedure Code claiming maintenance from her husband O.P. No. 2. The said petition was registered as Miscellaneous Case No. 27 of 2007 (trial case No. 62 of 2007). The Ld. Judicial Magistrate, Second Court, Chandernagore, Hooghly, disposed of the said petition awarding a maintenance of one fifth of the amount of the salary of O.P. No. 2, which has been calculated an amount of Rs. 3,500/ - per month. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the award of maintenance passed by Ld. Trial Court, the petitioner/wife has preferred the present revisional application on the ground that the Ld. Judge in court below acted illegally and with material irregularity in passing the impugned order by observing that.... "the opposite party entitle to get benefit for deduction of statutory deductions only. In that event the net salary would be..... Rs. 17,306 without considering the law prevailing in this respect.
(2.) MR . Kajal Roy appearing for the petitioner submits that opposite party No. 2 contested the miscellaneous case under section 125 Criminal Procedure Code by filing the written objection. He denied the legality of the alleged marriage. Opposite party No. 2 also took the plea of his inability to maintain the petitioner as he has to share to maintain his two unemployed brothers. It is the case of the opposite party No. 2 that he was forcibly taken at the house of the petitioner on the alleged date of marriage and his signature was obtained on some papers under threat. The said paper was subsequently converted into the application for registration of marriage. In course of trial both the parties adduced evidences in support of their respective cases. Opposite party No. 2 produced his pay slip which has been marked exhibited. In the said pay slip it appears that his gross salary is Rs. 25,490/ - and net salary is Rs. 7,306 out of which Ld. Court below observed that the opposite party/husband entitled to get benefit for deduction of statutory deductions only. In that event Ld. Court below calculated the salary of opposite party No. 2 would be Rs. 17,306/ -. Mr. Roy Ld. Advocate for the petitioner submits that opposite party No. 2 is Railway employee and working as a senior goods clerk. Mr. Roy further submits that Ld. Court below fixed the maintenance to the tune of Rs. 3,500/ - without assigning any reason or grounds and without considering the status of the present petitioner who is wife of a senior goods clerk of Eastern Railway. Mr. Roy submits that he has challenged the impugned order mainly on the ground that the same has been passed by the Ld. Court below without applying judicial mind and also without considering the norms and regulations prevailing for fixation of maintenance in the case under section 125 Criminal Procedure Code. Mr. Roy prays for interference of this Court in the impugned judgment and for passing the appropriate orders/directions as regards to the quantum of maintenance.
(3.) LD . Court below after considering the case of the parties as placed before him framed as many as four points for consideration. Firstly, whether the petitioner is the legally marriage wife of opposite party? Secondly whether the petitioner is able to maintain herself? Thirdly, is the petitioner neglected and refused to maintain? And, lastly, is the petitioner entitle to get an order of maintenance. Ld. Advocate expressed grievances only relates to the point No. 4 which decides the quantum of maintenance.;