PARNAB KUMAR CHAKARBORTHY Vs. RUMA CHAKARBORTHY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is aggrieved by an order dated 22. 8. 2006 passed by the learned ADJ on application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act as well as on application under Section 151 of the husband making a prayer for giving visitation rights to him to visit his daughter.

(2.) THE learned ADJ after considering the gross salary of the husband, working as Shift In-charge, as Rs. 6625/-, fixed a maintenance of rs. 2,000/- per month for wife and daughter to be paid from the date of moving of the application and also fixed Rs. 5,000/- as litigation charges. He directed the petitioner to clear arrears within a period of five months and to pay current maintenance by 10th day of each succeeding month w. e. f. September, 2006 and ordered that in case of default of payment of the current monthly maintenance, the husband would have to pay 20% extra of such maintenance amount. On visitation rights, the learned ADJ observed that he had called the minor daughter, who did not respond positively towards the father and started crying in the Court. He therefore, considered that no fruitful purpose would be served by granting visitation rights since the child was not having positive response to the father.

(3.) THE petitioner in his petition has stated that the learned Court has taken into account his gross salary while his net salary after deduction was hardly Rs. 5,000/ -. He had to maintain two houses. He was working in Bhiwadi in rajasthan as Shift In charge, his daughter from the earlier deceased wife was living at his ancestral house at Rai Barelli with his ailing mother. Thus, he had to maintain two units; one at Rai Barelli and other at Rajasthan. He also pleaded that the learned ADJ had not taken into account the fact that the wife was a professional beautician, who had done diploma in beauty-culture and hair dressing and in the bio data supplied to him at the time of marriage, it was stated that she was a freelance beautician doing the work of beautician. He further stated that the account of expenditure given by the wife would show that she was living in luxury, which was not possible out of the meager income of her father, who was a retired Naval Officer and since she was qualified and was spending a lot so, there was a presumption that she was earning and she had not come to the Court with clean hands.