ABINASH CH MONDAL Vs. JYOTSNA RANI MONDAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revisional application is directed against the judgment and order dated 15/11/2000 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Birbhum in Criminal Motion No. 35 of 2000 thereby allowing the same and setting aside the impugned order dated 14/02/2000 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Bolepur in Misc. Case No. 10 of 1997 and directing the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 1,000/- per month to the opposite party wife on account of her maintenance.

(2.) Being aggrieved thereby, the second party husband has preferred the present revisional application before this Court challenging the said order of the learned Sessions Judge as illegal, improper and liable to be set aside.

(3.) The relevant facts leading to the filing of this revisional application is stated below :- The case of the husband petitioner was that the petitioner (the second party before the trial Court) married the present opposite party (the first party before the trial Court) about 35 years back according to Hindu rites but within a short time of that marriage, the first party left her matrimonial home and started to live in her parental home of her own accord and never came back to the house of the present petitioner to lead a conjugal life and she rather refused to live with him and under such circumstances a salishi by the villagers was held and it was decided that the petitioner-husband would gift some landed properties to the opposite party-wife for her lifetime maintenance and accordingly this petitioner gifted by means of a registered deed of gift cultivable lands measuring about 2.92 acres in favour of the opposite party-wife (Vide Annexure 'A'). Since thereafter the opposite party went on possessing the said lands. The petitioner-husband subsequently filed a matrimonial suit for divorce and in that suit also the opposite party wife filed an application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act before the Court of the District Judge, Birbhum praying for alimony pendente lite. The learned District Judge, Birbhum after considering the materials on record and hearing both sides rejected that prayer (vide the judgment of that Court in Misc. Case No. 71 of 1987 arising out of Mat. Suit No. 29 of 1987 - Annexure 'B').