TARUN KUMAR GUPTA, J. - (1.) THE petitioner husband has filed this application under Section 397/401 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 challenging order dated 7th August, 2013 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Uluberia in Misc. Case No.67 of 2010. By the order impugned learned trial court directed the petitioner husband to pay maintenance under Section 125 Cr. P. C. to the O. P. No.3 wife at the rate of Rs.5000/ - per month for herself and at the rate of Rs.3,000/ - per month for their son being O.P. No.2.
(2.) THE admitted fact of the case as it is gathered from the materials on record as well as from the submissions of learned counsels of the parties may be summarized: - O. P. No.3 was married with petitioner on 15th May, 2005 under Special Marriage Act, 1954. A son (O. P. No.2) was born out of said wedlock. O. P. No.3 wife along with their son (O. P. No.2) are residing in her father's place on the ground of torture on demand of dowry. It was claimed that the present petitioner had a roaring income tax practice and that he had also income from landed properties. He also owns two flats at 7 B Tiljala Lane and 13 B Tiljala Lane. The husband contested said case by filing written objection denying material allegations of the petition and contending inter alia that the husband had only a meagre income of around Rs.50,000/ - per annum as a tax practitioner and that wife earns Rs.10,000/ - from tuition and that the wife was not entitled to get any maintenance. It was further alleged that the husband already filed a case in the appropriate forum claiming custody of the minor son and that on account of criminal activities of the wife and associates the husband has filed a specific criminal case being case No.292 of 2009. Both sides adduced evidence, both oral and documentary. After contested hearing learned trial court passed the order impugned.
(3.) MR . Sudipta Moitra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner husband has assailed the order impugned on the following grounds.: First, though the husband filed his income tax returns for several years to show his income but learned trial court refused to accept the same without any valid ground.;