KEDAR LASKAR Vs. SAHANARA BIBI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revisional application has been preferred against the order dated 10th July, 2001 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 3rd Court, Diamond Harbour in M. Ex. 25/98. Under this order the learned Magistrate rejected the prayer of the O.P. husband (the present petitioner) and directed him to make payment of the whole amount which was the subject matter of the execution case. The reasons which governed the learned Magistrate are that the arithmetical calculation regarding the computation of the arrears arising out of non-payment of the amount of maintenance were found to be Rs. 25,000/- out of which 50% had already been paid., Accordingly, he directed the O.P. husband to make payment of the entire balance amount for which the execution case was filed.

(2.) Being aggrieved by that order the husband has preferred the present revisional application challenging that order as wrong and unsustainable. According to Mr. Yamin Ali the learned Magistrate failed to appreciate the fact that originally the amount of maintenance which was awarded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge as a revisional Court while disposing of the revisional application filed against the order of maintenance granted by the learned Judicial Magistrate committed a typographical mistake by putting the figure as Rs. 800/- in the ordering portion instead of Rs. 400/- although otherwise he accepted the amount of maintenance awarded by the learned Magistrate as justified and did not have any inclination to enhance that amount as awarded by the learned Magistrate. Mr. Yamin Ali shows the copy of the said order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge dated 15th December, 1997 (against the order of the learned Magistrate dated 17th July, 1997) and points out that only in the ordering portion the learned Additional Sessions Judge mentioned the amount of maintenance as Rs. 800/- while in the next line he observed that the rate of maintenance allowance was being affirmed. Mr. Yamin Ali contends that such an observation is enough to show the real intention of the learned Additional Sessions Judge that the amount of Rs. 400/- as awarded by the learned Magistrate in his order under challenge dated 17th July, 1997 was found by him to be justified and he was not changing or enhancing that amount, but because of the confusion which arose out of the fact that the impugned judgment of the learned Magistrate before him was written in vernacular, that is, Bengali language and the figure 400 in Bengali was looking like Rs. 800/- in English and due to such a confusion the figure 800/- was wrongly put in the ordering portion of the learned Additional Sessions Judge although for all intents and purposes he was awarding the same amount as had been awarded by the learned Magistrate namely, Rs. 400/- per month. Mr. Yamin Ali further contends that due to such accidental slip of the pen of the learned Additional Sessions Judge substantial injury has been caused to his client, because as a result of such a mistake his client has been compelled to pay double the amount of maintenance all along and therefore he wants to get this anomaly set right.

(3.) Mr. Mondal, learned Advocate for the O.P. on the other hand contends that whatever substance might be in the contention of Mr. Ali, since the said order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge has not been the subject-matter of any revisional application or has not been challenged before any higher forum on in any manner or even no prayer for review of the order was made before the Sessions Judge the order remains in force and now that the Court is not dealing with this matter and further that the period of limitation for the purpose of preferring any revisional application against the same has been over, the petitioner husband is remedyless. He has no other alternative but to accept this amount of Rs. 800/- as the amount of maintenance which is to be paid to the wife every month.