SHYAMA PRASAD DUTTA Vs. SUJATA DUTTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this revisional application Shri Shyama Prosad Dutta, the petitioner and the husband of O.P. Smt. Sujata Dutta has challenged the legality and propriety of the order dated 11th Dec., 1996 passed by Shri S. Banerjee, learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate in T.R.No. 12/96 whereunder he granted maintenance to the tune of Rs. 3000 (1500 for the wife and 1500 for the child) by virtue of an ex parte order of that date. It was directed in this order that the husband would pay the amount of maintenance with effect from Dec., 1996 and within the 15th day of every month he would make the payment.

(2.) Having been aggrieved by this order the husband has preferred this revisional application. His case is that it has wrongly stated by the wife that he earns rupees two lakhs per month and more over the opposite party wife has sufficient source of income of her own and she was living reckless and adulaerious life and under such circumstances if the amount of maintenance as awarded by the learned Magistrate is not sufficiently reduced, it would be great hardship for him to pay such a huge sum every month. It is the further case that the O.P wife suppressed the facts and misled the court below and obtained the impugned order which therefore is liable to be set aside.

(3.) On a perusal of the impugned order I find that when the case was called on the date fixed, the petitioner wife was present, but the husband O.P( the present revisional applicant) was found absent in spite of repeated calls and the petition was not moved by him (vide order dated 10.11.97) and what is more, the learned Counsel of the husband appeared before the court at that stage and submitted before the court that his client had not contacted him, nor had given any instruction for the purpose of conducting the hearing and after making such submission he did not conduct the hearing. Thereafter, the learned Magistrate proceeded to take up the ex parte hearing of the matter. From the impugned order it also appears that there is an observation of the court below that on the previous date of hearing, that is, 30th Nov., 1996, also the O.P- husband was absent on calls and the learned Magistrate got the impression that he was not very eager to contest the matter. Thereafter, the learned Magistrate examined the witnesses for the petitioner and after considering the evidences on record he came to his finding that he had no reason to disbelieve the statement of the P.Ws. and according to him the case of the petitioner had been established and therefore he was inclined to allow the petition under section 125 Crimial P.C. for granting maintenance in favour of the wife and thereafter he passed impugned order already discussed above.