SANCHITA SENGUPTA Vs. SRI ASOK SENGUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In connection with a proceeding under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in the year 2002, the petitioner/wife and her minor child each was awarded an amount of Rs. 1,250/- per month as their monthly maintenance. Thereafter, in the year 2007, she moved another application under Section 127 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for enhancement of the maintenance on various grounds. The Learned Magistrate turned down her prayer for enhancement but allowed the same in respect of the minor child and increased it to Rs. 2,000/- from Rs. 1,250/- per month. Hence, this criminal revision.

(2.) Heard Ms. Sanghamitra Nandy, the learned advocate appearing for the petitioner/wife as well as Mr. Bratindra Narayan Ray, the learned advocate appearing for the opposite party/husband. Perused the impugned order and the other materials on record.

(3.) Ms. Nandy, the learned advocate for the petitioner/wife vehemently urged before this Court that the order of maintenance was passed in the year 2002, when the child was reading in Class-Nursery but by now prices have increased to such an extent it becomes practically impossible to maintain both herself and her minor child. She further submitted that the opposite party/husband is admittedly employed in the office of the Zonal Director General, Foreign Trade, Ministry of Commerce and Industries, Government of India and now he is earning Rs. 23,756/- per month. In such circumstance, not only it is essential due to the price rise the amount of maintenance be enhanced but also at the same time if such amount of maintenance is enhanced, no prejudice will be caused to the opposite party/husband. She had also drawn the attention of this Court to the fact that admittedly the mother of the opposite party/husband was regularly getting pensions. On the other hand, Mr. Bratindra Narayan Ray, the learned advocate appearing for the opposite party/husband vehemently resisted this criminal revision and submitted before this Court that the petitioner/wife on her own, left her matrimonial home and the opposite party/husband has filed suit for Restitution of Conjugal Right but due to her non-appearance, the suit has been finally dismissed. He further submitted that thereafter the opposite party/husband has filed an application for dissolution of the marriage. According to the learned advocate for the opposite party/husband at the present moment, he was only drawing Rs. 10,500/- per month and therefore, the question of enhancement of maintenance not at all arose.