BANKIM CH BANERJEE Vs. CHINMOYEE BANERJEE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revisional application is directed against an order dated 8-8-2000 passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Howrah, in Misc. Case No. 92 of 1987.

(2.) The petitioner, Bankim Ch. Banerjee and O.P. No. 1, Chinmoyee Banerjee, were married way back on 31-1-78 and a female child was born to them on 12-12-78. The female child has since attained majority. Earlier, in C.R.R. 2462 of 1997 a single Bench of this Court, Malay Kumar Basu, J., was deciding a revisional application filed by the husband, Bankim Ch. Banerjee against the wife, Chinmoyee Banerjee challenging an order date 3-6-97 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Howrah in Misc. Case No. 92 of 1997 under section 127 of the Code of Criminal Procedure under which a petition filed by the wife under section 127 Cr.PC was allowed and the amount of maintenance already granted earlier was enhanced to Rs. 600/- for the maintenance of the wife and Rs. 400/- towards maintenance of the minor daughter, it might be mentioned that originally, the husband was directed to pay a sum of Rs. 375 for wife and the child by virtue of an order of the learned Magistrate under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, in addition to that he was also under an obligation to pay a sum of Rs. 250/- under section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act as per orders of the Civil Court. Being aggrieved, he preferred a revisional application before this Court on the ground that he was not liable to pay towards maintenance under both the Acts. Thereafter, a single Bench of this Court passed an order making an adjustment of the amount payable by him on both counts and the total amount was reduced to Rs. 500/- on account of both the wife and the child. Accordingly, the petitioner was making payments of that amount to the opposite party. But the wife filed a petition under section 127 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Howrah, for enhancing the amount of maintenance and the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate passed the Order enhancing the amount of maintenance to a total sum of Rs. 1,000/- in place of Rs. 500/-. This amount of Rs. 1,000/- was towards maintenance of the wife to the tune of Rs. 600/- and maintenance of the minor daughter to the extent of Rs. 400/-. By filing the said revisional application before the single Bench of this Court (M.K. Basu, J.) the petitioner-husband contended that the daughter who was minor at the time of passing of the impugned order had, by that time, attained majority and that on that ground she could not be allowed maintenance any longer in view of the clear provisions of section 125 Cr.PC which provided maintenance for minor children only. It was not disputed by the learned Advocate for the wife O.P. that the daughter had attained majority after the impugned order was passed. But the question was raised whether the petitioner-husband should go on making payment of the amount of maintenance for the daughter even after she had become a major. The learned single Judge held that so far as the question of payment of the maintenance for the wife to the tune of Rs. 600/- was concerned, he found no justification in ordering a fresh hearing departing from what had been awarded by the learned Magistrate. In other words, the husband-petitioner was to go on making payment as per the order of the learned Court below towards maintenance to the wife. But, as regards the question whether the petitioner-husband was then liable to pay maintenance for the daughter also who had admittedly attained majority, the matter was to be heard and decided by the learned SDJM and the revisional application by the learned single Judge (M. K. Basu, J.) was accordingly disposed of.

(3.) In obedience to the order of the said single Bench of this Court in CRR No. 2462 of 1997 date 17.12.99 the learned SDJM, Howrah made the impugned order date 8.8.2000 which is assailed in this revisional application before me. The learned SDJM, by that order date 8.8.2000 relied upon a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 1997 Cri.LJ 3972, and had held that the daughter, who had attained majority, was still entitled to get the maintenance from her father and that the opposite party was liable to pay maintenance to his daughter who had attained majority and accordingly disposed the matter.