SUBRATA MUKHOPADHYAY Vs. AMRITA MUKHOPADHYAY
LAWS(CAL)-2015-1-35
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Decided on January 16,2015

Subrata Mukhopadhyay Appellant
VERSUS
Amrita Mukhopadhyay Respondents

JUDGEMENT

ASHIM KUMAR ROY, J. - (1.) IN March 2007 in a criminal revision a co -ordinate bench of this court enhanced the amount of maintenance from Rs.1050/ to Rs.1200/ - per month directed to be paid by the petitioner to the wife/opposite party. Subsequently, sometime in the middle of 2010 the wife/opposite party moved the court below an application under section 127 CrPC for enhancement of maintenance. The said application was allowed and by the impugned order amount of maintenance was enhanced from Rs.1200/ - to Rs.1400/ - per month. This criminal revision arises out of the said order.
(2.) THE learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner/husband submitted that the petitioner/husband was directed to pay maintenance in connection with proceedings under section 125 CrPC as well as under section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act.
(3.) HE further submitted that the petitioner/husband is a junior member of the Bar and, therefore, if he is required to pay both the maintenance pendentelite as well as the maintenance in terms of the impugned order that would cause great hardship to him. Therefore, the order of enhancement of maintenance be quashed. On the other -hand, the learned counsel for the wife/opposite party vehemently opposed this application. He submitted that in connection with a matrimonial suit, the petitioner was directed to pay Rs.2500/ - per month as maintenance pendentelite to the wife/opposite party and in a civil revision a coordinate bench of this court reduced the same amount to Rs.2000/ - per month taking into account that the petitioner has been paying a sum of Rs.1200/ - per month to the wife/opposite party in terms of the order passed under section 125 CrPC. He further submitted, however, that the petitioner is only paying Rs.2000/ - as maintenance pendentelite and nothing else. He then contended that the petitioner is a lawyer enrolled in the year 1989. Therefore, it cannot be said that he is a junior member of the Bar. He further submitted that in these hard days this quantum of maintenance cannot be said to be exorbitant.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.